Ltd.
Our final submission covering affordable homes and the extraordinary high housing targets. The OAHN is high for Cheltenham, at 10,900 it represents a 20% increase in housing across the town. Policy is now vital in the plan to deal with any shortfall in housing delivery in the plan period due to:
Market forces affecting housing sales with so many sites delivering to the same housing market area;
Changes to the aspirational economic growth currently set at the absurd annual rate of 4.7%;
Changes to ONS Population Projections post BREXIT;
Changes to the DCLG district housing projections and household formation rates as this work
transitions to the ONS.
More GOOD NEWS for Cheltenham and Leckhampton, Inspector Ord has published her JCS Interim Findings Report, recommendation is to remove Leckhampton from the JCS and look toward smaller development of 200 homes under the Cheltenham and Parish Council Neighbourhood Plans. The Parish Council Local Green Space application has been found sound, the detail to be decided by Cheltenham Borough Council, we will request indicative areas to be included in the final JCS. This interim report builds on the evidence of Inspector Ord’s preliminary findings, evidence that recognises Leckhampton unique landscape and character, the existing severe traffic congestion and the wider value of local green space with the extensive footpath network. Other great news is that Swindon Village is also protected, Local Green Space again recommended with the Parish Council’s Village in a Park concept.
‣EXAM 232 - JCS Inspector Ord Interim Findings 31-05-2016.pdf
‣JCS EiP Introductory Cover Letter from Ian Kemp (Programme Officer) Tel: 01527 837 920.pdf
Link to previous JCS news stories: JCS Public Consultation on Pre-Submission Document - Response
You may have had a letter from Ian Kemp (Programme Officer for the JCS EiP) dropped through the door, on the link above, he has set the date for the JCS public examination, 19th May at the CBC offices with Inspector Elizabeth Ord. The first week will be looking at the basic soundness of the JCS, has the plan been positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy. The developers will be there in force with their legal teams pushing for even greater housing numbers, we will be teaming with the Cheltenham Alliance and Parish Councils. Our intention is to employ our own legal team and QC who are experienced both in planning and the examination of local plans, our focus will be on the Housing Numbers and lack of evidence for the inflated numbers, the £750M (**) infrastructure funding gap for this level of growth now published in the JSC ARUP report and the failure to respond to previous public consultations. We intend to share costs and work closely with the Cheltenham Alliance but even with limited EiP attendance and choosing our attendance days carefully the project will cost in excess of £10,000.
Getting that vital planning expertise has worked in the past, LEGLAG consultants on both planning and transport/traffic really made the difference on the Bovis/Miller 650 which was refused 10 votes to 1 by the Cheltenham Planning Committee. To help us pay for all that we have achieved, residents have contributed generously in the past to a Fighting Fund to pay for legal experts, planning consultants and for distributing flyers across much of Leckhampton. Every penny has been carefully spent and is shown in our accounts. We can tell you that some £3,210 has gone towards Planning Consultants and other expertise and some £2,638 in printing and delivery costs. (At least 70% of the deliveries has been done by voluntary helpers, thank you)
(**) We believe that the huge JCS infrastructure funding gap of £750M and the building of so many houses will mean there will be insufficient resources to support all the additional "add ons" for such a large increase in population. For instance, insufficient road provisions, insufficient hospital facilities, beds, medical/GP services and emergency services, shortage of primary and secondary school places, we already bus the equivalent of one secondary school out of Cheltenham each morning, this will bring hardship to all across the area. It’s yet another way of central and local government to borrow from future generations.
Some of the email correspondence received on the preparations for the Examination in Public.
I’m really alarmed by the email below.
1. Can I make it very clear in case there is any doubt that I do wish to take part in the Examination in Public as I stated in my objection and I am absolutely certain that Leglag, Hashtag and the Cheltenham Alliance will also want to take part. The website summary misrepresents my intention and those of the other organisations and I suggest all the responses are checked.
2. June’s attachment shows a completely unintelligible reduction of my detailed four-page submission to the most recent public consultation to a couple of words amongst a series of auto-generated questions. I sympathise with your team’s workload and I’m not sure what the point or significance is of this summary presentation, but can I make it very clear that if it is for CBC to pass on objection documents to the inspectorate at submission, then I expect my complete, unexpurgated submission to be passed on and not some meaningless representation like this.
I’m sure these are just oversights but I would very much appreciate your urgent reassurance on both these points.
_____________________________________________________________________
After checking my submission on the JCS website I discovered that my comments had been noted as four & that it was recorded that I did not want to take part in the EIP.
I brought this to the attention of the JCS team on 9/10/2014 & asked them to investigate & correct & to check all their summaries of responses & whether the request to be part of the EIP had been recorded properly. Although I did have an acknowledgment on the 9/10/2014 I had not heard anything further so to speed matters up I then mailed all the councillors on the MSG & all the Cheltenham councillors 11/10/2014. I am aware that the JCS plan is being prepared for imminent submission to the Inspector & did not want to find it was too late for any changes.
On the evening of the 14/10/2014 I chased JCS team up & again on 15/10/2014 with no response.
I had only one acknowledgement from the 32 councillors & MSG members so on 14/10/2014 I chased the councillors up. Two councillors came back to me on 15/10/2014 to tell me the JCS team had confirmed to them that I had been sent a full response & corrections had been made. I had not at this time received any response from the JCS team nor had corrections been made.
On 16/10/2014 I had a mail from the JCS team to advise that they will amend my comments & let me know when this is done.
Although they haven't let me know, I checked the website this morning and my comments have been increased from four to seven making the overall total of comments from 3198 to 3201 & they now have correctly recorded that I wish to take part in EIP.
However, while checking my submission I also checked others. Interestingly all of the developer submissions I have viewed appear to have the right number of comments attributed to them & correctly recorded as willing to take part in the EIP.
But other submissions from people I knew would also have requested the chance of being selected for EIP such as HaShTAG, Leglag, Cheltenham Alliance all show that they do not wish to take part in the EIP & the number of comments against them do not correspond to those on the letters.
I hope you don't mind but I checked yours too. See attached & you only have 3 comments & apparently you do not wish to take part in the EIP , although your letter states otherwise.
In all honesty I do not know how the EIP part works as I have never been involved in anything like this before (I am part of HaSTAG) but I would assume that the summary may well be where the Inspector will select anyone who wants to be involved in the EIP. In addition by reducing the numbers of comments made, in my own case by almost half, it implies that there is less opposition from the public.
Part of my request to the JCS team was to do a quality check on the summary of individuals submissions. I have asked for confirmation that this will be done but have not yet received a response. Leglag, Cheltenham Alliance & HaShTAG are all contacting the JCS team to ensure their summaries are corrected, you may wish to do the same & you may have to ask more than once.
Regards
Mrs June Power
140 Broad Oak Way
Hatherley
Joint Core Strategy To 2031, Examination In Public with Inspector Ord and Ian Kemp
11 April 2017