Agenda item

To receive an update on the status of the Tewkesbury Garden Town programme and information about the recent success of the West Cheltenham Garden Village bid, made jointly with Cheltenham Borough Council, and to agree proposals for delegation of authority to Lead Officers for the efficient development of the Garden Village programme.

1.         That the progress made to date on the Tewkesbury Garden Town Programme be NOTED.

2.         That the Junction 9 Area Member Reference Panel be DISBANDED.

3.         That the creation of a new Tewkesbury Garden Town Member Reference Panel, together with the Terms of Reference attached at Appendix 2 to the report, be APPROVED, subject to the following amendments to those Terms of Reference:

·           under ‘Constitution and Powers’ add the word ‘Ward’ to ‘Members for Tewkesbury South’;

·           the quorum of the Panel shall be five Members of which at least one will be a Ward Member.

4.         That the progress to date  on the West Cheltenham (Cyber Central) Programme, including the award of Garden Village status, be NOTED.

5.         That authority be delegated to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Lead Members for Built Environment and Finance and Asset Management and the Head of Finance and Asset Management, to agree and enter into appropriate arrangements and other partnership documentation to progress the West Cheltenham Garden Village Programme on terms approved by the Borough Solicitor.

32.1           The report of the Garden Town Programme Director, circulated at Pages No. 62-73, updated the Committee on the status of the Garden Town Programme and provided information about the recent success of the West Cheltenham Garden Village bid which had been made jointly with Cheltenham Borough Council. Members were asked to note the progress made on the Tewkesbury Garden Town Programme; to disband the J9 Area Member Reference Panel; to approve the creation of a new Tewkesbury Garden Town Member Reference Panel with the draft Terms of Reference as attached to the report; to note the progress made to date on the West Cheltenham (Cyber Central) programme, including the award of Garden Village status; and to delegate authority to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Lead Members for Built Environment and Finance and Asset Management and the Head of Finance and Asset Management, to agree and enter into appropriate arrangements and other partnership documentation to progress the West Cheltenham Garden Village programme on terms approved by the Borough Solicitor.

32.2           The Garden Town Programme Director explained that the Tewkesbury Garden Town included approximately 10,195 homes and 100 hectares of employment land with delivery up to 2050. The opportunities from that would include consideration of technological advances/smart homes in terms of digital infrastructure and how that would benefit the wider Tewkesbury area. In terms of resources, the Garden Town Programme would have a Programme Director, a Programme Manager – with a focus on the Ashchurch bridge - a Community Officer and a Programme Assistant. The governance would include the new Garden Town Member Reference Panel and Officers would work with that group to define the programme and advisory groups etc. It was noted that, to date, a more ad-hoc arrangement had been in place, and a formal structure would be critical to the success of the programme.

32.3           Members received an update on the projects which were ongoing in the area including: J9/A46 – a Pre-Strategic Outline Business Case had been submitted for funding via the ‘Large Local Majors’ scheme through the Department for Transport (DfT) this was still in the early stages but it demonstrated to the DfT how important the scheme was; Rail – discussions had been held with franchisees - the Council could not drive the timetable changes but it was hopeful to get more stops - and the County Council in regard to the Gloucestershire Wide Rail Strategy; Masterplanning – BDP was completing phase 1 of its work and had been commissioned to embed the Garden Town principles. In terms of communications, the programme had its own website with regular updates via electronic media, masterplanning engagement and community engagement – the ‘branding’ for the Garden Town would be implemented soon and would ensure the programme was separate from the Joint Core Strategy and Tewkesbury Borough Council. The team was considering how best to get formal engagement with the community through the governance structure. The Council had a good relationship with Homes England which would be critical to the success of the programme. In terms of the Ashchurch Bridge project, the grant funding agreement with Homes England included conditions which were split into two phases; design/planning permission/transport modelling drawdown - £466,000; and the construction phase which was scheduled to start at the end of 2020 with completion due in March 2022. The key risks which needed to be understood included: Homes England - had passed its risks onto the local authorities; land – there were ongoing discussions with Homes England as to the preferred option; overall cost – part of Atkins phase 1; National Rail support – opportunity to close the level crossing; delivery by March 2022 – discussions ongoing with Network Rail in respect of line access; recovery mechanism – any income from Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) / Section 106 would be used to fund further housing delivery in the area; and wider project delivery - the homes actually being built. In terms of the West Cheltenham Cyber Central site, this included an allocation of 1,100 homes across 45 hectares; Cheltenham Borough Council had made a land acquisition of 107 acres; the project had received Garden Village status; a masterplanning/Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) had been commissioned; community engagement was scheduled for 11 / 19 September; and there were discussions ongoing with Homes England about how best to bring the safeguarded land forward. The Chair reminded Members that there was a special meeting of the Executive Committee on 4 November 2019 to approve that SPD for consultation.

32.4           In response to a query regarding the land acquisition made by Cheltenham Borough Council, the Garden Town Programme Director confirmed that this had been a sole purchase by that Council; there were still parcels of land owned by other individual landowners, but it was anticipated that Cheltenham Borough Council being in control of a large piece of the land would be able to bring the project forward in a timely manner. The Chief Executive confirmed that the land in Cheltenham Borough Council’s ownership was for the commercial element and was intended to ensure GCHQ could get on site with the cyber park as soon as possible. Much of the housing element of the area was likely to be within Tewkesbury Borough but this was still under discussion and was part of the masterplanning work. In addition, the safeguarded land to the west would most likely be predominantly housing but there was a lot of work ongoing to look at the options.

32.5           A Member noted that the consultation and discussions between Homes England and others in respect of the Ashchurch bridge had been ongoing for quite some time and she questioned whether Homes England was going to sign the agreement and whether National Rail was on board with the project. In response, the Garden Town Programme Director indicated that one of the conditions in the Homes England grant funding agreement was a written commitment from National Rail and that had been satisfied so nothing else was required from that organisation before the agreement was signed. The signatories were Tewkesbury Borough Council and Homes England. Work would continue with National Rail in respect of design and location etc. but Homes England wanted to complete the contracts by the end of September so the final terms etc. needed to be agreed prior to that deadline. The Member noted that Atkins had been doing the design work for the approach roads to the bridge via the County Council and she questioned whether Tewkesbury Borough Council now knew where the bridge would be. She also questioned whether the Garden Town would have a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) like the Garden Village at West Cheltenham. In response, the Garden Town Programme Director explained that the site needed to be allocated to have an SPD and this was not the case with the Garden Town; the team was looking to address that with the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) review. There was also a need to assess the policies involved and all of that would be considered through the next phase of the masterplan. The Council’s consultants would be undertaking further work on the masterplan as, when BDP had been commissioned, the Garden Town had not been on the agenda so there was now a need to consider the wider area of development.

32.6           The Chief Executive explained that the current update was not intended to provide the detailed information. When the governance arrangements were established, the Garden Town Member Reference Panel would go through the details so Members were fully aware of the risks involved in the project etc. There was an extremely large work plan running at the moment and the current report was designed to give an overview of how it was working. In terms of the funding of infrastructure, the justification for the A46 offline solution was the development in the whole area. Through the Garden Town programme, there was an opportunity to look at the infrastructure needed to bring development forward in the right way; a long term vision meant the Council could argue for funding. In response to a query regarding the name of the new Garden Town, the Garden Town Programme Director advised that, one of the key points was the transformation of Tewkesbury, and the risk in renaming the Garden Town was that it would not have the backing of being an area that people knew and understood. In addition, the new development needed to integrate with Tewkesbury town to the benefit of both areas and it was felt this would be difficult if it had a different name.

32.7           In respect of the proposed Terms of Reference for the Garden Town Member Reference Panel, a Member suggested that the quorum should be a minimum of four or five and there was some discussion as to whether that should include one of the Ward Members. The Borough Solicitor agreed that this could be added to the Terms of Reference should the Committee so wish. There was also a discussion as to whether the Deputy Leader of the Council should be involved in the Panel, but Members agreed this was not necessary given the involvement of the relevant Lead Members and Ward Members.

32.8           Accordingly, it was