Agenda item

To receive any questions submitted under Rule of Procedure 13. Any items received will be circulated on 23 January 2018.

 

(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).

65.1           The following questions had been received from Councillor Graham Bocking to the Lead Member for Built Environment.  The answers were given by the Lead Member for Built Environment, Councillor Elaine MacTiernan, but were taken as read without discussion.

Question:

Now that the Innsworth and Twigworth planning application appeals have been successful, primarily due to their inclusion in the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) and s106 has already been discussed and CIL is due to be at a reduced rate as they are JCS sites, how does this Council plan to fund and deliver the infrastructure highlighted as required in the JCS? 

Answer:

As CIL was not yet in place, the contributions from the site to infrastructure would come from s106 arrangements that had been determined as part of the appeal decision and negotiated through the subsequent detailed reserved matters applications.

The Council would continue to work with infrastructure providers and funders, such as the GFirst LEP, Gloucestershire County Council and Highways England, to progress the development of infrastructure projects as necessary. 

Question:

As this housing is to be built on appeal and it is possible that we will receive no new homes bonus on either site. Will the Council be putting a contingency plan in place to enable a smooth updating of its Medium Term Financial Strategy to compensate for this?

Answer:

The government had previously discussed proposals to potentially remove the eligibility for Councils to receive New Homes Bonus payments from schemes which had been granted planning permission at appeal; however, as yet, those proposals had not been implemented. Therefore the Council would receive New Homes Bonus payments from those sites.

Question:

As these plans were opposed as unsound on flooding grounds by the Council, what contingency plans have we put in place, and what funding have we put aside, to deal with the predicted flooding in the area?

Answer:

The Council’s flood risk objections at the public inquiry were made on the basis that the outline applications had not demonstrated how the proposals would have an acceptable impact in terms of flood risk. The Council did not object to the principle of development on the sites which were, of course, included in the Joint Core Strategy. The Secretary of State accepted the advice of the Appeal Inspector who took a different view to the Council and considered that those were matters which could be dealt with by the imposition of appropriate planning conditions. Officers would work closely with the developers and the Lead Local Flood Authority to ensure that the sites would be developed in line with the aspirations contained in Policy SA1 of the Joint Core Strategy.

 

 

 

Innsworth and Twigworth Site specific detail question

Background and reasons to ask the questions:

There are two main problems with the Innsworth and Twigworth sites – traffic and flooding.

On the flooding issue, in the approved Minutes of Tewkesbury Borough Council on the 31/01/2017 section 95.13:

“Planning Policy Manager advised that the Innsworth and Twigworth sites were very much interlinked and the flood risk needed to be looked at as a whole through a detailed masterplan.”

In the JCS final Report 26 Oct 2017, sections 194-196, the Inspector says the lack of a masterplan is not a reason to not proceed with the JCS.

Question:

What is the current status of the masterplan for flood mitigation?

Answer:

There was no specific masterplan for flood mitigation. A masterplan, and details of flood risk management, were submitted by the developer as part of the planning applications for both the Innsworth and Twigworth sites.

In the appeal decision letters, the Secretary of State imposed conditions requiring further Site Wide Masterplan Documents for the two sites to be submitted to the Council either prior to, or alongside, the first application for approval of reserved matters on each site. In addition, the Secretary of State had imposed conditions stating that no development should commence until a detailed surface water drainage strategy for the entire site had been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Council. Officers would work closely with the developer and the Lead Local Flood Authority to ensure that the site was brought forward in an acceptable way in line with Policy SA1 of the JCS.

Question:

Who is writing the masterplan?

Answer:

The developer was responsible for producing the Site Wide Masterplan Document and detailed surface water drainage strategy required by the conditions imposed by the Secretary of State.

Question:

When will it be available for public scrutiny?

Answer:

The developer had three years in which to submit the first applications for reserved matters on each development. The Site Wide Masterplan Document had to be submitted either before, or alongside, those first reserved matters applications. The availability of those details would depend on when the developer decided to submit them to the Council.

Question:

What is the proposed total area of the raised platform?

Answer:

This would be determined during the reserved matters applications process.

Question:

What is the total capacity of all the SUDS?

Answer:

This would be determined during the reserved matters applications process and through the surface water drainage strategy required by conditions 21 and 26 respectively of the Twigworth and Innsworth appeal decisions.

Question:

Can the Council give any indication on the proposed scale of house owners’ ‘flood mitigation/management’ fee charges? And should the properties not sell, as the responsible authority, will the Council guarantee the flood mitigation management/maintenance is kept up to date?

Answer:

The scale of fee charges would be a matter between the developer/housebuilder and purchasers.

Conditions 21 and 26 respectively of the Twigworth and Innsworth appeal decisions required the developer to submit a detailed surface water drainage strategy which must provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development. It would also include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime.

65.2           The following questions had been received from Councillor Mike Sztymiak to the Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management. The answers were given by the Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management, Councillor Ron Furolo, but were taken as read without discussion.

The government has given a commitment to the introduction of all electric cars by 2040. They have also incentivised the purchase and take up of electric vehicles and encouraged the introduction of public charging points. In Tewkesbury and other parts of the Borough it will not be possible for owners to use their private dwellings to charge these vehicles because they have to be parked on-street and this would mean trailing cables across pavements and roads. These people will be dependent on public charging points.

Question:

What has Tewkesbury done to facilitate the introduction of public charging points?

Answer:

The Borough Council had yet to facilitate the introduction of public charging points on its own assets.

The Tewkesbury Borough Plan would include guidance on the provision of charging points.

Question:

Does Tewkesbury Borough have any plans to introduce them on premises they own e.g. Gloucester Road Offices/Leisure Centre, car parks, etc.?

Answer:

The Asset Management Team’s service plan for 2018/19 would contain a specific action to review vehicle charging points and conclude the viability of installation at a number of Council-owned assets. This was likely to be programmed for the second half of the year given other requirements for the team to progress.

Question:

What use has Tewkesbury Borough Council made of government grants available to local Councils to help provide public charging points?

Answer:

The Borough Council has yet to make use of government grants for the installation of vehicle charging points on its own assets. The review mentioned above would include consideration of government grants and other subsidised or free schemes.

65.3           The following question had been received from Councillor Mike Sztymiak to the Lead Member for Built Environment.  The answers were given by the Lead Member for Built Environment, Councillor Elaine MacTiernan, but were taken as read without discussion.

Question:

What planning policies encourage the installation of public charging points?

Answer:

There were no existing planning policies within the local plan for Tewkesbury that specifically related to public charging points. The JCS did have more general policies regarding sustainable transport and design; however, the emerging Tewkesbury Borough Plan would include more detailed guidance on the issue.

65.4           The following questions had been received from Councillor Mike Sztymiak to the Lead Member for Health and Wellbeing.  The answers were given by the Lead Member for Health and Wellbeing, Councillor Julie Greening, but were taken as read without discussion.

                  Question:

How many foodbanks are operating in Tewkesbury Borough?

Answer:

Three official Foodbanks – Tewkesbury, Bishop’s Cleeve and Winchcombe.

Question:

How many people are they supplying?

Answer:

See below.

Question:

Can I have this figure broken down into the number of families, adults and children that benefit from food banks?

Answer:

Tewkesbury

Figures for December 2017:

·      Number of vouchers:  46

·      Number of adults:       69

·      Number of children:    45

·      Total number:              114

·      Number of meals:       1,026

Bishop’s Cleeve

                  April 2015- March 2016

·      44 vouchers redeemed

·      181 people fed

·      85 adults

·      96 children

                  (6months only)

                  April 2016 - March 2017

·      101 vouchers redeemed

·      408 people fed

·      179 adults

·      229 children

                  April 2017 - 18 January 2018

·      91 vouchers redeemed

·      357 fed

·      157 adults

·      200 children

                        Winchcombe

                  April 2013 - March 2014

·      110 vouchers redeemed

·      437 people fed

·      173 adults

·      264 children

                  April 2014 - March 2015

·      104 vouchers redeemed

·      399 people fed

·      171 adults

·      228 children.

                  April 2015 - March 2016

·      100 vouchers redeemed

·      343 fed

·      145 adults

·      198 children

                  April 2016 - March 2017

·      53 vouchers redeemed

·      132 people fed

·      80 adults

·      52 children

                  April 2017 - 18 January 2018

·      33 vouchers redeemed

·      90 fed

·      47 adults

·      43 children

65.5           The Mayor invited supplementary questions and, in response, the following were asked:

                  Councillor Bocking – one of the main things highlighted in the production of a new Secondary School was S106 monies totalling approximately £5 million. Given that a new school could cost between £30-60 million, and that funding was not in the County Council’s funding projections for the next five years, what other sources would the Borough Council look at to secure the required funding for a secondary school. In response, the Head of Development Services explained that the site had been won on appeal so the S106 agreement had been presented to the Council rather than negotiated by it. The Borough Council would now work with the County Council to provide a range of infrastructure including the school.

                  Councillor Bocking – in view of the government’s consultation on New Homes Bonus funding, what contingency plans were the Council putting into place should New Homes Bonus not come through in 2019/20. In response, the Head of Development Services advised that, at this stage, the government had made no changes to the funding. In addition, as she understood it, any developments built following appeals that had already happened would still receive New Homes Bonus funding as they had been granted prior to any change.

                  Councillor Bocking – will the Council guarantee that any issues raised by its flooding expert in the Inquiry would be addressed. In response, the Head of Development Services advised that Officers at Tewkesbury Borough Council would work closely with the Lead Local Flood Authority to ensure the site was developed appropriately and with as much flood mitigation as possible.

                  Councillor Bocking – who would monitor the Site Wide Master Plan document. In response, the Head of Development Services explained that the developer would be responsible for the Master Plan and, as the responsible local authority, the Borough Council would work with them and experts to ensure it was approved. The monitoring of it would be considered as part of the production of the Plan.

                  Councillor Sztymiak – how will Members be involved in the review of the provision of vehicle charging points. The Head of Finance and Asset Management explained that it was currently not known when the review would be undertaken but he would ensure Members were consulted at the appropriate time.

                  Councillor Sztymiak – Why was there no historical information available for Tewkesbury foodbank. The Head of Development Services indicated that she would respond in writing following the meeting as she needed to check if there was any more data available from the food bank.