Agenda item
Member Questions properly submitted in accordance with Council Procedure Rules
To receive any questions submitted under Rule of Procedure 13. Any items received will be circulated on 25 January 2021.
(Any questions must be submitted in writing to Democratic Services by, not later than, 10.00am on 18 January 2021).
Minutes:
50.1 The following questions had been received from Councillor Ockelton to the Lead Member for Built Environment. The answers were given by the Lead Member for Built Environment, Councillor Gore, but were taken as read without discussion.
Question 1:
Could the Lead Member for Built Environment update Council on the planned consultation that was due to take place in January 2021 about the non-statutory A46 Route Options.
Answer 1:
The J9/A46 project, which aims to deliver a solution to the capacity issues of the A46 and its junction with the M5, is being led by Gloucestershire County Council, the Local Highway Authority. Current advice received from the County Council is that it is intended to submit the project proposal, when finally developed, to the Department for Transport (DfT) for funding from the Large Local Majors (LLM) fund. As part of this work, a non-statutory public consultation was scheduled for January 2021. This would have involved public consultation in respect of the preferred route options and their development. The consultation has, however, been postponed on the basis of a request from DfT that Highways England need more time to review the proposals. A new schedule is to be finalised but is currently expected to take place in early summer 2021.
Question 2:
Would the Portfolio Holder for Built Environment update Council on the 5 Year Housing Land supply? (5YHLS)
Answer 2:
The current five year land supply statement covering 2020/21 to 2024/25, available on the Council’s website, confirms that the Council has a 4.35 year housing supply. Link to webpage provided. This figure takes into account houses that have already been delivered during the plan period.
Question 3:
Considering the confidence statement at the December Council meeting (08/12/20) re s106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy, can the Portfolio Holder for Built Environment please inform Council how confident she is that the priorities within that agenda item will be delivered in the period 2021/22 to 2024/25.
Answer 3:
The Infrastructure Funding Statement approved at Council on 8 December, sets out both reports on the income and expenditure of Community Infrastructure Levy and s106 contribution, as well as an infrastructure list.
The infrastructure list refers to 25 projects, without setting out any priorities between them, which the Council intends will be, or may be, wholly or partly funded by Community Infrastructure Levy. The infrastructure list will be reviewed at least on an annual basis.
Regarding s106 contributions, where explicit expenditure has not been set out within the relevant s106 obligation or undertaking, the process for the allocation of available s106 funds is that these are advertised on the Tewkesbury Borough Council website, social media and press release. Community organisations then complete an expression of interest (EOI), explaining how the funds will be spent and what difference it would make to the community. The decision on the award of funds is made by the Head of Development Services in consultation with the s106 Panel.
Question 4:
Could the Portfolio Holder for Built Environment give her assessment for the number of deliverable sites, for monitoring period 2020/21 to 2024/25?
Answer 4:
I am satisfied that the Council’s assessment of deliverable sites for the 2020/21 to 2024/25 monitoring period, which is part of the current five year land supply statement already referred to, is robust.
50.2 The Mayor invited supplementary questions. The Member asked the following and answers were provided by the Lead Member for Built Environment.
Question:
The Lead Member for Built Environment stated that the revised consultation is expected to take place in early Summer 2021. We know from other comparables that Highways England consultations usually span a period of about four months with an additional period of three months for them to consider the consultation responses – so roughly seven months to enable a full and proper consultation. Assuming there is no slippage on the “early Summer” consultation (June) – and then we move forward seven months. That takes us to January 2022 – assuming no slippage. The Lead Member should be aware that nothing more can be done on the JCS Preferred Option Consultation until at least January 2022. However, that does not sit squarely with the way reports have been presented on the timetable. Would the Lead Member agree with the timeline I have suggested and inform Council of the implications this would have on the JCS process.
Answer:
The Lead Member for Built Environment advised that this was led by the County Council and the advice was detailed in the original response.
Question:
I take the information link given, however, as the Council has lost more appeals than it has won, should the Lead Member for Built Environment not take the advice of those planning inspectors, including our local plan inspector and government advice and stop using oversupply incorrectly and identify deliverable housing sites to cover those being discounted at this time.
Answer:
The Lead Member for Built Environment advised that all Members had received a briefing note on the Gotherington appeal and that was the current position.
Question:
I would be grateful if the Lead Member for Built Environment could inform me as to when the A38 A40 Gateway link road (£15.5 million as set out in the 8December Council meeting, page 69) is likely to be started.
Answer:
The Lead Member for Built Environment undertook to ensure a written response was circulated.
50.3 The following questions had been received from Councillor Ockelton to the Leader of the Council (as Chair of the Planning Policy Reference Panel). The answers were given by the Leader of the Council, Councillor Bird, but were taken as read without discussion.
Question 1:
Would the Leader of the Council, as Chair of the Planning Policy Reference Panel (PPRP), please update Council on the current state of the Joint Core Strategy Review.
Answer 1:
At Executive Committee on 6 January 2021 the Local Development Scheme was approved. This sets out the timetable for the JCS review:
· Issues & Options Consultation – Winter 2018/19.
· Preferred Options Consultation – Summer 2021.
· Pre-Submission Consultation – Winter 2022.
· Submission to the Secretary of State – Spring 2023.
· Examination – Summer 2023.
· Adoption – Winter 2023.
Question 2:
Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) indicates that assessments should go further, and seek to evidence that completions are likely to be forthcoming, as Chair of the PPRP would the Leader of the Council update Members as to how robust the housing delivery is taking into account the requirements of the PPG.
Answer 2:
I am satisfied that the Council’s assessment of deliverable sites for housing has been made in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and the guidance within the PPG and is therefore robust.
Question 3:
Would the Leader of the Council please inform Council as to his understanding of the “Plan Led Process”, as briefly as is possible, for the JCS.
Answer 3:
The Plan Led process for the JCS is that the Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031 (adopted December 2017) provides the overarching strategic plan for the area covered by the three Councils and sets out the housing requirements for each of the three Councils.
50.4 The Mayor invited supplementary questions. The Member asked the following and answers were provided by the Leader of the Council.
Question:
Why, as Chair of the PPRP, considering your last response, has the Leader of the Council cancelled the Working Group meetings quoting “the Working Group had no business to discuss”. Obviously, that is not true. Council Minutes from December 2017 states the Review would “move swiftly”. I am struggling to see what pace as we are now in 2021.
Answer:
The Leader of the Council advised that advice was given by Officers at the time that at that moment there was not sufficient work to be undertaken by the PPRP.
Question:
As the local plan has a lack of deliverable identified housing sites, how would the Leader of the Council suggest we meet the required housing numbers or is the Leader of the Council happy to continue the practise of allowing Developers to make those decisions at appeal.
Answer:
The Leader of the Council undertook to ensure a written response was circulated.
Question:
As Tewkesbury Borough Council has lost 64% of appeals, I would suggest that the strategic plan is demonstrably flawed. Would the Leader please inform Council, as the cost to the taxpayer of these appeals and what is his plan B.
Answer:
The Leader of the Council undertook to ensure a written response was circulated.
50.5 The following questions had been received from Councillor Bocking to the Lead Member for Built Environment. The answers were given by the Lead Member for Built Environment, Councillor Gore, but were taken as read without discussion.
Given the disastrous impact from development on the Innsworth Twigworth Longford ward and neighbouring areas, particularly with regard to flood impact where Decembers flooding (although not exceptional) led to some residents' homes being flooded for the first time, or the first time since the exceptional event in 2007. Consequently, I have several questions regarding flooding and the planning process that allowed this to happen and what measures can be taken to safeguard residents should it ever rain heavily again in these areas.
The questions are Ward specific but carry generic full borough implications within the answers they will generate and the methodology by which these answers are reached.
On 17 November 2020 the surface water drainage plan condition for the development of 74 dwellings at Yew Tree Farm in Twigworth was put before the Planning Committee and the Planning Committee decision on this site on surface water management was very narrowly passed only after the assurance was given that no extra water would go into the recently discovered, and not fully explored, Victorian culvert. For this to happen, as water is planned to be pumped uphill to the gulley to remove it from site, the surface water currently must be using the gulley at the same rate Pumping it there will generate and this would mean it:
a) runs uphill from the site to the A38;
b) that there would be no less evaporation from dramatically reducing the water surface area; and
c) that an area that uses some soak away to control surface water will not have soak away amounts affected in anyway by being built upon.
Given all the information and the setting of attenuation volumes at around ½ a million litres of water the risk is significant.
The Lead Local Flood Authority has said in answer to subsequent questions that the sites surface water “would have flowed onto the A38“ (which is uphill) and that answer is final.
Yew Tree farm specific questions:
Question 1:
Can you please confirm that all surface water on the site currently runs uphill from the site to the A38.
Answer 1:
Surface water does not run uphill. Following development, water will be pumped with an electrical pump from the attenuation ponds into the surface water culvert that runs under the A38 and discharges into the Hatherley Brook.
Question 2:
Can you also confirm that there would be no less evaporation from dramatically reducing the water surface area which currently pools across the entire site to just the attenuation ponds surface area, only a small fraction of what it is now.
Answer 2:
The evaporation reduces if the area reduces.
Question 3:
Can you confirm that an area that uses some soak away to control surface water will not have soak away amounts affected in anyway by being built upon.
Answer 3:
The area will be affected by being built on which is, of course, why there is a requirement for suitable drainage systems to be implemented on development sites.
Overall area questions
Question 1:
The local residents, supported by hydrology expert professor Ian Cluckie, have put together a document of flood evidence for the area but there is a delay in it being incorporated into official records due to what has been stated as funding issues, hence could all development in the Twigworth area be suspended while the community’s evidence on flooding is incorporated with Environment Agency data and then flood risk and mitigation is re-evaluated for the area taking all of it into account.
Answer 1:
No, the developers are carrying out works, for which they have in place the necessary planning permissions.
Question 2:
If a developer pumps water off site and it causes flooding or environmental damage elsewhere who is responsible for holding them to account and how are they held accountable.
Answer 2:
This is a civil matter between respective land/property owners.
Question 3:
I am led to believe that Gloucestershire County Council, through its Scrutiny Committee is setting up a scrutiny panel to look at flood mapping, flooding and the planning system, can we ensure that Tewkesbury Borough Council takes an active role with this panel and completes its own scrutiny review to feed into it.
Answer 3:
The County Council has confirmed that a full summary of the December flooding event will be presented to its Environment Scrutiny Committee in March 2021. The summary will be an assessment of the event, comparison of meteorological data, identification of worst hit areas and potential next steps for resilience building. Tewkesbury Borough Council Officers have been working with Gloucestershire County Council Officers to feed back on the impact and the role the Borough Council played in immediate response and initial assessment.
Question 4:
Given that there is the potential for other sites to emerge during the JCS review process how can we, as an authority, guarantee that a full cumulative impact assessment with regard to flooding, both pluvial and fluvial is carried out and fully assessed prior to any sites inclusion.
Answer 4:
A strategic flood risk assessment will be undertaken which will inform whether a site is included within the JCS. This will also consider cumulative impacts.
Question 5:
Because of the increase of flood risk currently being demonstrated in the Innsworth Twigworth Longford Ward and surrounding areas, since the adoption of the JCS and its subsequent impact on properties, who is legally liable should inaccurate conclusions and/or information, or faulty or out of date evidence be shown to be used concerning flood risk in firstly the JCS and secondly the Borough planning process and as the planning authority, what liability do we have if agreed mitigation is not completed to standard or timescales.
Answer 5:
Any legal liability could only be determined on the facts of any particular case.
The Local Planning Authority has a responsibility to ensure, through its planning polices and its determination of planning applications, that future developments are sustainable and do not increase flood risk elsewhere. Development Plans (JCS / Borough Plan) are adopted and individual applications determined following a statutory process that includes examination of the evidence available at that time.
If agreed mitigation, secured by way of planning conditions/obligations, is not completed in accordance with the approved details and at the right time, the Council will take steps as necessary and expedient to enforce any such conditions/obligations.
50.6 The Mayor invited supplementary questions. The Member asked the following and answers were provided by the Lead Member for Built Environment.
Question:
Given that Yew Tree farm’s drainage condition only just passed in Planning Committee based on the assurance that no extra water would be having to use the only partially explored, and somewhat dilapidated, Victorian culvert under the A38, and this would have required the current water, (which is due to be pumped there uphill after development) to be going there now, meaning the water must currently be flowing uphill and defying the scientific rules of evaporation and absorption - which the answers prove it does not. Consequently, could this development be put on hold until there is proof that this somewhat insubstantial culvert is capable of handling this now known about substantial extra volume of water in order to keep existing residents and indeed the A38 safe.
Answer:
The Lead Member for Built Environment undertook to ensure a written response was circulated.
Question:
Given that no developments in the area can be put on hold because of the existence of planning permission, it somewhat limits our options so should it be agreed by Council, Section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states that the Local Authority can revoke the planning “In exercising their functions under subsection (1) the authority shall have regard to the development plan and to any other material considerations.” While the ins and outs of whether we go down this road is a debate for another time and not relevant here could you please explain what the actual process for the Council for revoking planning under this act is - a material consideration in this case could be flooding.
Answer:
The Lead Member for Built Environment undertook to ensure a written response was circulated.
Question:
Whilst I fully appreciate, we are all human and mistakes will be made, going forward what protections can we, as a local planning authority, put in place so that we can rectify decisions made under the influence of unclear or incorrect information.
Answer:
The Lead Member for Built Environment undertook to ensure a written response was circulated.
Question:
Following on from my questions on potential liability for this Council, and given that currently one developer has been pumping water off their site on a major scale into a local watercourse which is believed by some residents to have had significant impact on flooding, pollution etc. As we are currently not using any enforcement powers to stop this, who is liable if we stand by and do nothing and could we be held accountable for non-action in regard to a known issue.
Answer:
The Lead Member for Built Environment undertook to ensure a written response was circulated.
Question:
As the JCS has fallen seriously short in this area, can we as a Council or with our JCS partners retrospectively and immediately commission a cumulative flood impact assessment including both pluvial and fluvial flood risk as well as impacts from our neighbours and other known external influencing factors (as mentioned) and incorporate this into our development plans? And how can Members and the wider community be reassured that the disjointed approach currently being demonstrated will not be repeated.
Answer:
The Lead Member for Built Environment undertook to ensure a written response was circulated.
50.7 The following questions had been received from Councillor Jordan to the Lead Member for Clean and Green Environment. The answers were given by the Lead Member for Clean and Green Environment, Councillor Mason, but were taken as read without discussion.
Question 1:
It is understood that Gloucestershire County Council has an ambition to plant 1 million trees within the next 10 years.
Please can the Portfolio holder for the Clean and Green Environment confirm how many trees Tewkesbury Borough Council planted in 2020 and how many trees were cut down or died in the same year on Tewkesbury Borough Council land or other land over which he has any interest/authority.
Answer 1:
The Council’s Tree Safety Management Policy requires that any tree felled on Council land must be replaced, ideally with the same species. Council records indicate that 12 trees were felled and replaced in 2020.
Question 2:
Given the importance of trees to our environment and taking into account issues such as Ash dieback, the Portfolio holder is also asked what Tewkesbury Borough Council’s tree planting plans and ambitions are for the next decade.
Answer 2:
The Council’s only approved tree management policy is the Tree Safety Management Policy which as previously highlighted requires a one-for-one replacement. The policy does not go further to outline plans to increase the number of trees being planted but the Council will take opportunities within specific projects to plant further trees where possible. The Council is also a partner in the Gloucestershire Local Nature Partnership which has produced a Gloucestershire Tree Strategy that includes a target, amongst others, of trees and woodlands covering at least 20% of the county by 2030.
50.8 The Mayor invited supplementary questions. The Member asked the following and answer was provided by the Lead Member for Clean and Green Environment.
Question:
Is the Lead Member for Clean and Green Environment able to put in place a timebound tree planting strategy to help address this emergency.
Answer:
The Lead Member for Clean and Green Environment undertook to ensure a written response was circulated.
Supporting documents:
PDF 40 KB