To receive any questions submitted under Rule of Procedure 13. Any items received will be circulated on 28 June 2016.

(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).

26.1           The following questions had been received from Councillor Sue Hillier-Richardson to the Lead Member for Built Environment.  The answers were given by the Lead Member for Built Environment, Councillor Derek Davies, but were taken as read without discussion:

Question 1:

In these new proposals, in this report, what is the number of housing units that will now be scheduled to be allocated, by the JCS, in the strategic allocations, to land entirely within the Cheltenham Borough Council, the Gloucester City District Council and the Tewkesbury Borough Council areas - i.e. the number scheduled to be built within these Councils’ borders and how has this number changed from the previous proposals?

Answer:

Provided below are tables to show which strategic allocations would be located in each authority area. This is based on what was presented in the Submission JCS (November 2014) and the recommendations in the Inspector’s Interim Report. Please note that the capacities, particularly those based on the Interim Report, are approximate and further work would need to be undertaken if sites were taken forward.  The tables also do not take into account the cross-boundary sites within Wychavon and Stroud Districts that the Inspector has recommended are explored.

Strategic Allocations within Gloucester City

Strategic Allocations within Cheltenham Borough

Strategic Allocations within Tewkesbury Borough

Question 2:

How many housing units from the strategic allocations have been removed from the Cheltenham Borough Council area in this new proposal?

Answer:

The Interim Findings proposes reductions to both the strategic allocations at North West Cheltenham and South Cheltenham Leckhampton.

At North West Cheltenham the Inspector recommends provision of a green buffer around Swindon Village which the Inspector believes would reduce the allocation by 500 dwellings.

At Leckhampton, the Inspector recommends that development capacity should be significantly reduced to around 200 dwellings within Cheltenham Borough. As previously capacity at this site, within Cheltenham, was approximately 764 dwellings, this would mean the removal of 562 houses.

The Inspector does recommend the inclusion of part of the land at West Cheltenham that is currently proposed to be safeguarded land in the Submission JCS. This would bring part of the site forward as a strategic allocation for 500 dwellings. This site is primarily within Cheltenham Borough however, depending on the final agreed boundary, could include a small element of land within Tewkesbury Borough.

Question 3:

Are there no longer any strategic allocations at Leckhampton?

Answer:

The Interim Report recommends that the part of the site within Tewkesbury Borough (Farm Lane) should be removed from the allocation. In addition, the Inspector also recommends reducing the capacity of the site within Cheltenham Borough to around 200 dwellings. Following these recommendations the remaining level of development on the whole site would be too small to classify as a strategic allocation and would be removed from the JCS. The Inspector considers that the remaining site would be more appropriately allocated within the Cheltenham Local Plan.

Question 4:

Will housing proposed in Prestbury be strategic allocations, or in the Cheltenham Borough Plan?

Answer:

In the Interim Report the Inspector has judged that there is additional potential housing capacity at non-strategic Green Belt sites which could increase Cheltenham’s district capacity; this includes areas around Prestbury. While the Inspector recommends their removal from the Green Belt to be undertaken through the JCS, any allocation would be for the Cheltenham Local Plan to consider

Question 5:

Is it not true that most of the housing units removed from the Cheltenham strategic sites are now scheduled to be allocated to land within or immediately adjacent to Tewkesbury Borough?

Answer:

The Interim Report recognises, by making the recommended reductions to the strategic allocations and North West Cheltenham and South Cheltenham Leckhampton, that this would leave Cheltenham with an unmet need of 1,539 dwellings.

The Inspector recommends an additional allocation at West Cheltenham (currently proposed as safeguarded land in the Submission JCS) which could accommodate 500 dwellings. This site would primarily be within Cheltenham Borough but immediately adjacent to Tewkesbury Borough. There could also be a small portion of the site within Tewkesbury Borough depending on the final agreed site boundary.  This would leave an unmet requirement of 1,039 dwellings.

The Inspector also recommends the release of non-strategic Green Belt land to the North and North-West of Cheltenham to provide additional housing capacity. The Inspector states that the capacity of this collection of sites would total at least 735 dwellings, but could deliver over 1,000 dwellings and meet Cheltenham’s remaining housing requirement in full. These sites would be wholly within Cheltenham Borough; however, some of the recommended sites (such as land at Prestbury) would be adjacent to Tewkesbury Borough.

Question 6:

At the most recent JCS Member Steering Group meeting on 16 June, the Lead Member stated that ..."we won't challenge the report", in one of his comments about how 'good and clever' the Inspector was. Please could he explain how he reached this view and does he still hold this view tonight?

Answer:

I referred at this meeting to the fact that the Interim Report belongs to the Inspector and the role of the Council at this point is to consider her findings, before responding.

26.2           The following questions had been received from Councillor Mike Sztymiak to the Leader of the Council.  The answers were given by the Leader of the Council, Councillor Robert Vines, but were taken as read without discussion:

Question 1:

The burst water main at the Mythe Water Treatment Works caused many homes in the Borough to be without water or very little water for many hours. Did this Council consider it to be an emergency?

Answer:

Yes - a major incident was declared on Wednesday 8 June by the Local Resilience Forum for Gloucestershire.  This is part of the countywide approach to Emergency Planning and, as such, Tewkesbury Borough Council worked together with multiple agencies to respond on behalf of our residents.

The Emergency Plan is led by the Civil Protection Unit based at the County Council and involved Gloucestershire Police and key partners including Severn Trent Water, the Clinical Commissioning Group, Public Health England, the Borough Council and other key agencies from across the public services.

Question 2:

How well do you think the Council responded to these events?

Answer:

The major incident was led by Gloucestershire Police who chaired both the Strategic Coordination and Tactical Coordinating Groups under the Emergency Plan, working with partners. 

For the Borough Council our main task, through the Tactical Coordinating Group (TCG), was to share lists of individuals and households that may be vulnerable locally.  This identification was carried out and a response was sent to the TCG within the timescales that they requested. The Council also carried out a number of preparatory activities in identifying resources should the situation have prolonged. 

As the Council Offices were also affected, this was not only about considering how best we support our communities due to the loss of water, but also how we maintain the delivery of services. 

Both of these issues were considered during the incident but, fortunately, the water was restored before they needed to be put into action.

A debrief session has been arranged through the Civil Protection team to learn any lessons from the incident and the Council is participating in this process. 

For information:

·      On 8 June there was a burst 30 inch water main pipe at Mythe Water Treatment Site.

·      There was a loss of water supply to a number of communities in the Borough.

·      Other areas were also affected, including parts of Worcestershire.

·      There were eight schools/ nurseries closed in the area (although Tewkesbury School still opened for exams).

·      Severn Trent Water (STW) contacted its customers and put out regular updates via its Twitter account.

·      Supplies were restored the next day (9 June) although there was water discolouration for a time.

·      Compensation is available to both residential and business customers of STW who were affected

As Leader of the Council I think that the Council responded well to these events and played the role that was expected of it as one of a number of partners supporting the Police in leading the incident.

26.3           The Mayor invited any supplementary questions and, in response, the Member asked the following:

How effective are we in identifying vulnerable people in situations where there could potentially be no water for a number of hours?  Would a central list be a better way to obtain details of vulnerable people rather than contacting Parish Councils?

26.4           The Leader of the Council indicated that he would ask Officers to explore whether anything additional could be done.