To receive an update on the Joint Core Strategy 

1.      That the report be NOTED.

2.      That, in order to advance the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) Examination, the following actions, with the support of the JCS authorities if possible, be APPROVED:

a.    Raise, with the Secretary of State and local MPs, the significantly detrimental impact of the protracted Examination process and invite them to meet the Council/JCS partners to discuss these concerns. These include the failure to be able to make the required planned housing provision and the granting of permission on appeal sites throughout the Borough which are not allocated in any Development Plan.

b.    Request a meeting with the Planning Inspectorate to:

-       determine a timetable/programme for stage 3 of the Examination; with a view to concluding the Examination as quickly as possible.

-       explore the possibility of the Inspector making an ‘interim findings report’ in order to release those sites for which the new transport modelling is not critical, provided that there is no prejudice to the timetable for the Examination consequent upon the production of interim findings; and

-       canvass whether there is support that could be made available to the Inspector to assist her to conclude the Examination expeditiously.

c.    Contact Members and Officers of Gloucestershire County Council and senior representatives of Highways England to stress the importance of delivering the transport modelling evidence in a timely manner to support the Plan and not to cause further delay to the JCS Examination.

d.    Continue to progress the ‘We are Gloucestershire’ devolution bid including the ‘ask’ of Government that the Planning Inspectorate and Government Agencies work with Gloucestershire authorities to expedite core strategies and local plans delivery.

56.1           The report of the Development Services Group Manager, circulated at Pages No. 86-96, presented an update on the progress of the Cheltenham, Gloucester and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy following its submission to the Secretary of State on 20 November 2014. Members were asked to note the report and to approve the proposed actions which were set out at Paragraph 7.1 of the report in order to advance the Joint Core Strategy examination.

56.2           Members were advised that, following submission of the Joint Core Strategy in November 2014, the Secretary of State had appointed Elizabeth Ord as the Inspector to undertake the independent examination into the soundness and legal requirements of the plan. The examination hearing sessions to explore the key aspects of the plan had not commenced until 19 May 2015. The original examination programme had split the hearing sessions into two stages; stage one had run from 19 May to 10 June 2015 and had discussed: objectively assessed need for housing; employment land and job provision; gypsy and traveller provision; duty to cooperate; vision and objectives; and procedural and legal requirements. Stage two was then timetabled to run from 7 to 24 July 2015 and had been scheduled to discuss: spatial strategy; green belt; strategic allocations; omission sites; infrastructure; and other plan policies. However, during the stage one session, the Inspector had expressed some concerns over the evidence base and was keen to ensure that the Joint Core Strategy was underpinned with up-to-date and robust evidence. As such, she had requested that further work be undertaken on the objectively assessed need for housing, the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs and employment and retail requirements. Due to the time it would take to complete that work, and to allow other interested parties to consider it, the Inspector had recommended that the evidence be picked up at further hearing sessions to take place in autumn 2015. It was felt important that the Inspector had not suspended the examination, as had been experienced by some other local authorities, but was comfortable to proceed with the stage two sessions in July while the additional work was undertaken.

56.3           The stage two sessions had commenced on 7 July, however, due to the length of the discussions that had taken place during the stage one sessions, the Inspector had recognised that the initial timetable would not be adequate; therefore, the decision had been taken that stage two would still take place in July but that it would only deal with issues of spatial strategy, green belt and the strategic allocations. The remaining issues, including omission sites, transport, infrastructure and other plan policies, were moved to a new stage three to take place in autumn 2015 along with the revisited stage one session. Following stage two, the examination was paused to wait for further timetabling. During the pause in the examination, between 8 and 18 September, the Inspector had conducted site visits for the strategic allocations and the omission sites; following that, the hearing sessions reconvened over five days, between 6 and 15 October, to discuss omission sites across the Joint Core Strategy area. During that time discussions between the Joint Core Strategy authorities and the Inspector had resulted in a timetable being set that would see the revisited stage one sessions being discussed in December with stage three taking place in February 2016. Unfortunately, due to the amount of work requested by the Inspector, the initial deadline of 7 September had not been met by Officers and the Inspector had agreed an extension to the end of October; however, as there was a need for a four week consultation period for relevant examination participants following publication of the new information before undertaking the hearing sessions on those topics, the Inspector decided that the revisited stage one sessions would take place in January 2016 instead of December 2015. At the current time the timetable for the stage three hearing sessions had not been programmed although it was likely that these would take place in March 2016.

56.4           Key to the discussions for stage three was the availability of the transport modelling evidence base. The Joint Core Strategy authorities had been working closely with Gloucestershire County Council and Highways England on developing this along with the mitigation package needed to deliver growth. Extensive modelling work had been undertaken to support the plan using the 2008 based Central Severn Vale SATURN model and it was generally agreed that, until such time as an updated model was available, the 2008 model remained the most appropriate tool for assessing the highways impacts of the Joint Core Strategy. However, leading up to the examination, the County Council and Highways England had stated that any further testing should wait for the availability of the new 2013 based model. This had been expected to be available for use from August/September 2015; however, there had been issues with the production of the model and the County Council had struggled to get it to a standard where Highways England could agree that it complied with national requirements. These issues were unlikely to be rectified, and the model available for use, until spring 2016.

56.5           During the discussion which ensued, Members expressed much concern about the progress of the examination to date and the length of time it was taking overall; particularly that it had not even begun until six months after submission. One Member suggested that the Council needed to point out the serious damage that the delayed examination would have on the County’s devolution bid, as well as on the Joint Core Strategy itself, and he questioned whether the Council could request that the Inspector was provided with some additional resource to help the examination move more swiftly. In response, the Chief Executive confirmed that Officers were as concerned about the issue as Members and a letter had been sent from Andrew North, as Chairman of the Joint Core Strategy Programme Board, to the Planning Inspectorate to raise concerns about the apparent lack of urgency to expedite the examination and the problems this was causing for the Joint Core Strategy authorities in terms of development being put forward in locations that were not optimal and with the Council and the authorities involved having little they could do to prevent it. The Chief Executive felt that there was not much to be achieved in continuing a dialogue with the Planning Inspectorate in terms of numbers but that there was a need to move to delivery. He felt that increasing support for the Inspector, particularly given the complexities of the Joint Core Strategy, could help and this was something that could be suggested. The Planning Policy Manager indicated that examinations he had been involved in elsewhere had sometimes included an assistant for the Inspector and he felt this may be something that would be helpful in this case; although it may not be an approach that the Planning Inspectorate would wish to take given that the examination was now well underway.

56.6           A Member questioned whether it had initially been the expectation that the examination would have ended in July 2015 and, in response, he was advised that this would have been the case. The initial delay had certainly been a factor as there had been six to seven months of waiting before it had begun. In addition, the amount of participants that wished to be involved had also been an issue as no one would have anticipated the amount of time that would have taken. The Member felt that this was not really acceptable as examinations were something that the Planning Inspectorate dealt with regularly and, as such, the basic structure should be in place. One of the frustrations of Officers was that, following the further work on the objectively assessed need, the figures were not dissimilar to those originally submitted and therefore it was felt that the plan should have been able to move along with a review in five years as was the original intention. Officers understood that the Inspector wanted the plan to be as robust as possible and therefore her requests for more information were valid; it was nevertheless frustrating that the process was taking so long. Members queried whether the delay in submitting the further information requested had delayed the examination into the New Year. In response, the Planning Policy Manager advised that Officers felt that the information had been submitted in plenty of time for the examination to continue in December as planned but it was the Inspector’s decision that it should reconvene in January instead.

56.7           Referring to the transport modelling which was awaited from the County Council, a Member expressed the view that this was the biggest concern and risk to the Joint Core Strategy at the moment. In response, she was advised that Highways England was involved. At the beginning of the process it had been agreed by all that the 2008 model would be the right one to use; however, when it was known that the new one was on its way it was felt that it should be used. Now that the timetable for the 2013 model had slipped, any further delays would be a risk to the examination which was of concern. The Chief Executive felt it was a shame that the authorities had been unable to continue to use the 2008 model; however, the A46 in Ashchurch was not accurate in that model which was an additional problem. He suggested that the Council could write to Highways England and the County Council to stress the importance of getting the model completed and made available on time. He also suggested the potential of asking the Inspector to provide interim advice on the possible release of sites that were not dependent on the transport modelling so that they could be available for development. It needed to be made clear that Councils could not deliver housing at the speed requested by the Government if the Planning Inspectorate continually sought perfection on the plans being examined.

56.8           Members expressed their astonishment at the letter that had been received from the Planning Inspectorate in response to the letter sent to it by the Joint Core Strategy authorities and felt that, in the main, it did not adequately respond to the points raised. There followed a discussion about how best to move forward in terms of whether or not to respond to that letter and most Members felt that this would not achieve anything. One Member questioned how long, on average, hearings took in other authorities; the number of days to date that the Inspector had considered the Joint Core Strategy and the number of days she had had off. She was of the view that the Planning Inspectorate was not offering value for money and she felt this was an important point that ought to be raised. In terms of the length of other examinations, the Planning Policy Manager explained that this varied a lot depending on whether or not the examination was suspended and how complex it was. In terms of the number of days the Inspector had heard the examination this was unknown and he was unsure whether it was information that could be requested from the Planning Inspectorate. In addition, the Chief Executive felt that cost was important; the Planning Inspectorate was an independent agency which had been set up by the Government and the longer the examination went on for the more the Councils had to pay. There were of course also additional costs to the additional work requested and the Chief Executive felt these were valid points to make to the Inspectorate. It was generally felt that it was time for the Councils to bring political pressure to try and get the examination moving; particularly since it was such a huge issue in the area and one of the biggest things the Borough Council had ever done.

56.9           It was considered that, although Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Councils did not have quite the same urgency in terms of the need to stop unwanted development, they were equally as frustrated at the time the examination was taking and any action that Tewkesbury Borough Council took would need to be done alongside its Joint Core Strategy partners. A Member expressed the view that there were three costs to the examination; the physical cost, as the Councils remained open to unwanted development; the numbers of houses that were being lost on a daily basis as the Council was unable to build in its preferred areas; and the cost paid by the communities that were getting development in the wrong places. In respect of Gloucestershire’s housing, 75% of it was within the Joint Core Strategy and he felt this point needed to be made to the Government. Some Members suggested that a letter to Greg Clarke MP inviting him to the Borough to hear Councillors concerns might be helpful; he may also be able to help find a way forward. Other Members felt that this would not help but that the Council must bring pressure on the County Council for the transport modelling to be completed. In addition, it was suggested that the Borough Council’s view be raised at the next meeting of the Joint Core Strategy Member Steering Group so that its partners were fully aware of the views expressed.

56.10         Members were of the view that the points noted within the report did not cover what had been discussed and, accordingly, it was