Agenda item

At its meeting on 9 November 2023, the Executive Committee considered the Cheltenham, Gloucester and Tewkesbury Strategic and Local Plan Public Consultation (Regulation 18) and RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that it be APPROVED for consultation under Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act (Local Planning)(England) Regulations 2012; and that authority be delegated to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Lead Member for Built Environment, to prepare diagrams illustrating the general location of development options for inclusion in the consultation document, and to make any other necessary minor amendments, corrections and additions to the document prior to publication for consultation.

67.1          At its meeting on 9 November 2023, the Executive Committee considered the Cheltenham, Gloucester and Tewkesbury Strategic and Local Plan Public Consultation Document and recommended to Council that it be approved for consultation under Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 and that authority be delegated to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Lead Member for Built Environment, to prepare diagrams illustrating the general location of development options for inclusion in the consultation document, and to make any other necessary minor amendments, corrections or additions to the document prior to publication for consultation.

67.2          The report which was considered by the Executive Committee had been circulated with the Agenda for the current meeting at Pages No. 1-47.

67.3          In proposing the recommendation of the Executive Committee, the Lead Member for Built Environment advised that as Members were aware, the Council had agreed to formally work together with Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Councils on a Strategic and Local Plan (SLP).  This was the start of a long journey and, for now, it was not at the stage of needing to prioritise anything.  The formative Regulation 18 stage was about asking people what they thought the plan should contain and obtaining views on broad policy options and issues – it was about big questions such as how and where to respond to the needs of a growing population and how to address climate change and nature recovery through the planning system.  It was therefore proposed that the draft document, attached at Appendix 1 to the report, be published to form the basis of a wide ranging round of public consultation and engagement starting in December.  This included a draft vision and strategic objectives which had been discussed at various points with Tewkesbury Borough Council’s Planning Policy Reference Panel, and equivalent Member panels across the partnership.  It also set out a range of issues and posed 31 questions to start the conversation with communities and the development industry.  The Planning Policy Reference Panel recently met jointly with the Member Working Groups from Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Councils and a large number of helpful comments and suggestions were made on an earlier version of the document. To a large extent, these were reflected in the revised draft consultation document set out in the Council papers.  She reiterated that one of the recommendations was that the document be further refined before being published in December. This would include grammatical and Plain English improvements but also conceptual diagrams, which were currently being drawn up, and would attempt to generally illustrate – without showing site details – the broad patterns of development that would arise from the various growth options described in the document.  Gloucester City Council had approved the document and Cheltenham Borough Council would be considering the document at its Council meeting on 11 December 2023.  It was proposed to launch the consultation immediately after to ensure that documents were in the public domain before Christmas, with active engagement commencing early in 2024.  It was proposed that the consultation should be for no less than eight weeks in part to recognise the interruption of the Christmas break.  In terms of the approach to consultation - which would be an important part of this process, as had previously been discussed by the Committee - although there were minimum standards in the Statement of Community Involvement, it was intended to be ambitious and creative and work was underway to reach as many people as possible, including young people who traditionally did not take part in such consultations; this would include a mixture of face to face, digital and targeted methods.  The proposed approach to consultation would be discussed at another joint Planning Policy Reference Panel meeting on 30 November 2023 which would also provide an opportunity to review first drafts of the conceptual diagrams.  This marked the early stages of the SLP, and it was recommended that Council resolve that the document at Appendix 1 be published for consultation; as a number of minor amendments and corrections would be needed, including the diagrams and general graphic design work, delegated authority was also being sought for these to be made by the Chief Executive in consultation with the Lead Member for Built Environment prior to issuing the final document.  The proposal was seconded by the Leader of the Council as Chair of the Executive Committee.

67.4          A Member thanked Officers for the hard work which had gone into the document which had been changed considerably since it was considered by the Planning Policy Reference Panel.  She felt that any amendments to make it more accessible to those without a planning background would be important in terms of engaging as many people as possible.  With regard to the ‘introduction and context’ and ‘what has happened so far’ sections of the report, she noted that reference to the 2018 consultation in respect of the review of the Joint Core Strategy had been removed and asked the reasoning for that.  The Interim Planning Policy Manager advised that the document had been streamlined as much as possible and, on reflection, it had been considered that this was a different plan and not a continuation of the same regulatory process in 2018, albeit that some of those responses would be relevant.  There was no reason why the previous issues and options document could not be referenced but this was a very different concept which needed to be expressed in as simple terms as possible and cross-referencing to the previous document was not considered to add to the context and importance of this one; notwithstanding this, it could be included if Members felt it was particularly necessary.  The Member expressed the view that, if residents had taken time to respond to the previous consultation, it was important they knew their responses were continuing to be considered so it was something she would like to see included.  The Member went on to draw attention to scenario four in relation to new strategic settlements - she considered this to be fundamental but it had not been discussed by Planning Policy Reference Panel and she raised concern that the document mentioned specific places, such as Boddington and the Forest of Dean between Churcham and Highnam, which were not included in the original document so she sought clarification as to where they had come from.  In response, the Interim Planning Policy Manager advised that these had been specifically noted as matter of fact in response to the ongoing call for sites exercise.  The Council had a duty to invite land owners, developers and site owners to submit expression of interest for allocations and to plan on an ongoing basis and it was felt that it would become slightly less of an abstract concept to include those which had been submitted, and would be assessed in terms of the background evidence, to assist consultees.  The Member noted that another location on the boundary of Tewkesbury itself on the A38 had also been submitted prior to this and she asked why that was not referenced.  The Interim Planning Policy Manager felt this was a valid point but explained that the option the Member had referenced to the southwest of Tewkesbury would not be classed as a new strategic settlement based on figures, rather it would be a very significant extension which would be captured under one of the other options via the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) work.  He reiterated that the different development scenarios were constructs to enable a conversation with communities and infrastructure providers and anyone else with an interest in the plan, it was not a technical exercise of fitting everything into one box.  As the report explained, none of the six growth scenarios would stand up as a development option in isolation, it would inevitably be a blend of those.  In relation to the draft vision, the Member indicated that the Planning Policy Reference Panel had considered this did not reflect aspirations for housing and employment across the borough in rural locations and she asked whether the draft vision would be at the forefront of the document or whether it would be a supplementary document for the borough plan strand moving forward.  The Interim Planning Policy Manager advised that a draft vision had been included at this stage to give some shape to the consultation, albeit no decisions were being made.  Rural concerns were encapsulated to a degree in the draft vision but he could see no reason why, when it came to the draft plan proper to address specific Tewkesbury Borough matters, that section could not have its own vision.

67.5          A Member felt it was a very good document and he commended those Officers involved in its production; however, he raised concern that Members had not been presented with the maps and diagrams which would be included within it and he sought assurance they would be of a very illustrative nature.  The Leader of the Council advised that this issue had been raised a number of times in meetings by himself and the Lead Member for Built Environment and was something that all three authorities were very mindful of.  The Executive Committee had also discussed this matter and made an amendment to the recommendation to delegate authority to the Chief Executive, rather than the Associate Director: Planning, in consultation with the Lead Member for Built Environment, to prepare those diagrams which were due to be considered by the Chief Executives and Leaders of the three authorities at their next meeting, prior to consultation.  The Member went on to indicate that it had been recognised that consultation in relation to Tewkesbury Garden Town had not been successful and he wanted to ensure that lessons had been learnt from that so asked what was considered ‘good enough’ in terms of the consultation process and responses received and what was being done differently this time to ensure that consultation was as wide as possible.  In response, the Lead Member for Built Environment advised that it was intended to use a range of consultation methods to ensure no sector was excluded and there would be an emphasis on communities with young people, as they would inherit the work being done today.  The Member expressed the view that the engagement plan was as important as the document itself but he had not seen one for this particular document.  The Leader of the Council advised that a Statement of Community Involvement preceded this document, which included a lot around ensuring engagement was inclusive, and he provided assurance that lessons were being learnt from previous consultations.  The Interim Planning Policy Manager agreed that the manner of consultation was as important as the document being consulted on and reiterated that the Statement of Community involvement set out the general intentions regarding consultation but a more detailed and specific consultation strategy was being worked on and would be initially discussed at the joint Planning Policy Reference Panel on 30 November 2023.  There would be a focus on active engagement with an intention to talk to as many people as possible, making use of communications specialists and new technologies available – importantly, this was the start of a journey so this consultation would not be a one-off and there would be ongoing conversations well beyond this current stage.

67.6          With regard to Page No. 42 of the report, and specifically the reference to the potential option for new strategic settlement straddling the boundary of Tewkesbury Borough and the Forest of Dean between Churcham and Highnam, a Member asked how it could be ensured that the development would be allocated to Tewkesbury Borough Council’s housing numbers and not absorbed into the Forest of Dean.  In response, the Interim Planning Policy Manager advised that it was not at that stage yet - the general location had been identified on the basis of what had been submitted to Tewkesbury Borough Council as an option for consideration.  Another Member questioned whether Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Councils had Statements of Community Involvement and if there was any conflict with Tewkesbury Borough Council’s statement.  The Interim Planning Policy Manager confirmed that all three authorities had a Statement of Community Involvement which were broadly consistent, albeit with different emphases.

67.7          With regard to climate change mitigation and adaption, a Member indicated that, once adopted, the SLP would be in place for a considerable amount of time and it would be necessary to quickly adapt to a new hotter world so he asked whether the document would enable young people in Tewkesbury Borough to have successful lives beyond that.  The Interim Planning Policy Manager indicated that this was a very big question and it was necessary to be mindful that the planning system could only play a set role in administering climate change and nature regulations; however, clearly it was an important tool and there was a statutory requirement for the plan to address climate change and its causes and put in place measures to mitigate for it.  In accordance with the Environment Act 2021, developers would be required to deliver 10% Biodiversity Net Gain from January 2024 and there was no doubt that climate change mitigation would form an important part of consultation and engagement over the coming months.  The Member questioned whether the SLP would remain a live document going forward and was advised that legislation expected all local planning authorities to prepare local plans; this was a long and difficult process which required widespread public consultation and was based on extensive evidence, tested by a government Inspector, so everything in the plan must be justified.  Once adopted, the plan carried a particular status in decision-making on planning applications.  Clearly things changed over time and a plan should be reviewed every five years but, once adopted, it had a particular status in law. 

67.8          A Member noted the plans to consult widely and asked what would constitute a successful consultation in terms of number of responses, how long it would be before Members could see the data and how that would be divided so that it could be demonstrated that local communities were represented.  The Lead Member for Built Environment indicated that it was very difficult to assess what would be a successful response but she provided assurance that everything possible would be done to ensure that extensive feedback was captured.  The Interim Planning Policy Manager advised that, ultimately, success would be tested by Members in terms of what they thought when the consultation responses were reported and whether it had met the Statement of Community Involvement and the engagement plan.  If it was considered that a particular section of the community was unrepresented in the responses, it would be possible to reflect on that during the consultation process.  The Council had invested in a new consultation platform which would be much more effective than previous methods and there was an expectation to bring back to Members as soon as possible what had been learned from the consultation in order to debate what that meant and reflect on how to move forward.  The Member queried whether it was possible to obtain a geographical breakdown of respondents and confirmation was provided that Officers would be looking to provide some kind of indication as to the source of comments.  The Lead Member for Built Environment stressed the importance of all Members engaging with residents at the appropriate time to actively participate in the consultation and helping and advising them to ensure they put their views forward.  Another Member raised concern that, from the questions posed by the consultation document, it would be difficult to gain an understanding of the strength of feeling as there was no quantitative measure.  He would like to see a data set which could be split into categories of people, where they lived, age etc. to understand who was saying what; without that it would be difficult to draw any firm conclusions.  The Lead Member for Built Environment felt that was a valid point and confirmed that the system which would be used could produce those specific results.

67.9          During the debate which ensued, a Member indicated that there had been a full discussion on this report when it had been considered by the Executive Committee and there had been a lot of useful observations; however, he was concerned that comments made today seemed to suggest that success would be reviewed once the consultation had finished and he was strongly of the view that review of take-up and responses should be ongoing in order for the strategy to be changed if necessary.  In terms of engagement with Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Councils, he was keen to ensure that all three authorities had full review of one another’s meetings in order to reflect on what had been discussed and he sought assurance that would happen.  He was conscious that the public had not had sight of the Minutes from the Executive Committee on 9 November in advance of this meeting which would demonstrate that the report had been considered in detail.  In response, the Leader of the Council provided assurance that Officers would not be waiting until the consultation closed to review the process and, if they could see that responses were not being received from a certain demographic or locality, that would be addressed.  The Monitoring Officer advised that the Minutes of the Executive Committee were very thorough and reflective of the debate at that meeting.  The Minutes were now available publicly via the Council’s website which was in accordance with the usual timescales.  The Member indicated that his main concern was ensuring that the other two authorities were not simply told that the document had been approved without any knowledge of the debate that had taken place and the points which had been raised.  The Chief Executive advised that he was the SRO for the programme and undertook to circulate a report pulling together all of the issues discussed by the three authorities.

67.10        With regard to Page No. 24, Paragraph 4.13 of the report in respect of policy actions regarding climate change which might be considered through the SLP, a Member indicated that she was aware of one Council which had taken the decision that all new builds would be fossil fuel free and asked whether this should be posed as a question in the consultation to establish how residents felt in relation to that.  Climate change was at the forefront of minds across the country and it was important to acknowledge this.  The Leader of the Council indicated that he was not opposed to including this if Officers were satisfied the correct wording could be included; as alluded to earlier in the meeting, it could have been set out as a neutral document without any suggestions but that would be difficult for residents to respond to, however, he was keen to ensure it did not go too far in terms of steering them in a particular direction.  The Interim Planning Policy Manager advised that Page No. 25 of the report included more general questions about how the SLP could most effectively address the impacts of climate change and about the measures and standards the SLP should introduce in respect of construction and operation of new buildings; he reiterated that the document was not intended to be prescriptive.  It was acknowledged that this document was only one part of the consultation process and there would be other mechanisms for suggestions and thoughts to be raised.

67.11        A Member indicated that, at the Executive Committee meeting, he had made the point that the consultation should not exclude schools, colleges and universities through its timing; December and January were not particularly good months for engagement due to holidays and he suggested the joint Planning Policy Reference Panel meeting discuss how the three authorities could work together to engage with those bodies.  The Lead Member for Built Environment indicated this could be taken on board at that meeting.

67.12        Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           1. That the Strategic and Local Plan Consultation Document (Appendix 1) be APPROVED for consultation under Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.

2. That authority be delegated to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Lead Member for Built Environment, to prepare diagrams illustrating the general location of development options for inclusion in the consultation document, and to make any other necessary minor amendments, corrections and additions to the document prior to publication for consultation.