Recent Issues
Motions to Council
Most people agree with PAB that the present planning system, both locally and nationally, is out of date and needs amending. Because of this opinion and with the help of Conservative members, we called on the Council at its meeting on 27th June 2011 to support three motions calling for a review of planning policies. If Council approved the motions then it would have been incumbent on the planning authority to make the necessary changes.
The first motion asked Council to set up a review group to see if the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Garden Land & Infill Sites needed to be brought up to date. PAB councillors referred to several back garden sites that had been approved for development when it seemed that the decision had been taken against the spirit and intention of the SPD. If we were right, then the SPD needed to be amended and strengthened. The Lib/Dem administration was not enthusiastic for a review, but Council did narrowly approve the motion. Apart from one small discussion with officers, no action to report so far from the Council.
The second motion called on the Council to review the existing local plan policies before they became part of the new local development framework. Central government had already indicated that a national policy framework would be imposed if local councils failed to introduce planning policies that were ‘fit for purpose’.
Planning appeals, which allows an applicant the right to appeal against a council planning decision appears to be flawed. Because of this view, PAB councillors submitted a third motion calling on the council to review the current procedure and to re-engage a planning appeals officer.
When an application is refused by the committee and against the case officer’s recommendation to permit, the case officer is obliged to take the appeal through to its final conclusion. This is flawed too.
PAB councillors discovered that all the case officer was doing was sending copies of his report, plus the minutes of the meeting, to the Planning Inspectorate for a final decision. This is not fair, unless the council includes a substantial planning statement based on all the opinions expressed at the planning meeting. We also found that on occasions the council engaged external consultants to present the case. This is expensive and often proved to be a waste of money, and if the consultant had not been sufficiently briefed then the developers legal representative usually made ‘rings around him’.
PAB asked for the appeal system to be reviewed by setting up a working group and reporting back to council.
This was opposed by the administration.
Cheltenham Town Football Club and the Racecourse
Not surprisingly, there have been howls of anguish from local residents following the full page article in the Gloucestershire Echo (Sept 29th) about a relocation of the football club to the Racecourse. We know that many people do not buy the newspaper, so we are persuaded to publish our views on this very important proposal. According to the article, discussions between the parties and the Borough Council have been taking place since 2008. The PAB Group, the ward councillors, or the parish council have not been invited to these discussions. Like local residents, we have read reports in the Echo from time to time about a possible relocation, but whenever we have challenged the Council and the Racecourse manager, we have been told that it was ‘kite flying’ or there were too many obstacles to overcome that the prospects for the relocation were slim. So what value can we put on council statements when the Leader of the Council is reported as saying that ‘Cheltenham Borough Council would be broadly supportive of the proposed move’. How and when did he come to that conclusion?
Local residents have been generous in their support of the numerous activities that take place on a daily and weekly basis. It includes putting up with regular traffic problems, which often prevents them freely accessing their properties. They have put up with noise and disturbance, including unseemly behaviour that is not experienced anywhere else in the town. Perhaps the main reason why the residents accept such a bad situation is because they live in a highly sensitive Green Belt area, which has been and continues to be protected by strong and robust Green Belt policies. The Green Belt between Prestbury and Bishop’s Cleeve, formally established more than sixty years ago, was to keep the two settlements apart. In fact, Cheltenham Borough Council went further and introduced a Green Belt policy specifically for the Racecourse. Policy CO 9 states that ‘development at the Racecourse, including extensions, will only be permitted where it is principally horse racing related’. Unless footballers are going to wear jockey silks, a cap and a whip, the policy should not be breached.
The words from the Coalition Government and the Prime Minister himself, that the Green Belt will be protected, will sound hollow if the Borough Council, the custodians of all planning policies, ignore the advice.
In fairness to the Racecourse manager, he was reported as saying that ‘there were planning obstacles’ and ‘they could prove to be insurmountable obstacles to the football club moving to the Racecourse.’
In our view, if this Green Belt policy is breached, what next?
Boundary Commission
PAB councillors reported in the Spring 2011 Newsletter that as part of the 2011/2012 budget setting process, the County Council Conservative administration proposed a reduction in the number of County councillors from 63 to 53.
Their proposals to the Boundary Commission for the Cheltenham area resulted in the number of County councillors for Cheltenham being reduced from 12 to 10. The County Council also proposed that the wards of Pittville & Prestbury should make up a new county division. This made good sense. However, having reviewed the County Council’s submission, the Boundary Commission dismissed the proposal and paired Prestbury with Swindon Village. They also proposed that the Pittville and St Paul’s wards should become another county council division.
The Boundary Commissions recommendations went out for consultation during the summer and caused concern to many local residents from Pittville and Prestbury. Prestbury Parish Council also objected to the proposals. PAB councillors would like to thank all local residents who took the time to write to the Boundary Commission expressing their concerns on this important matter, which will not be good for either Pittville or Prestbury.
The Boundary Commission, in making their recommendations, appeared to possess very little knowledge of the links between Pittville and Prestbury; such as education, bus services, library services or planning issues in the areas. These important links have now been fully explained to the Boundary Commission by PAB councillors, so they cannot claim they didn’t know about them. The Boundary Commission claimed that one of the factors used in making their decision was that the Prestbury parish boundary extended into the Swindon Village ward. And, it was their belief that parishes should not be split between divisions. If this was the criteria they used, then it was a poor comparison to make to the important links argument that we had put forward.
Councillor Dave Prince has submitted an alternative option to the Boundary Commission for a Pittville and Prestbury Division by moving the Prestbury parish boundary. We are hopeful that this will find favour with the Boundary Commission.
The final recommendations from the Boundary Commission will be published on the 18th October 2011.
FLOODING AND THE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS THAT FOLLOWED JULY 2007
Like many parts of the country, Cheltenham residents suffered as a result of the unprecedented rainfall on that dreadful day in July 2007.
Prestbury village, for example, lies at the foot of the surrounding hills and has always been vulnerable to flooding. Nevertheless, a lot of the flooding problems had been caused by poor and inadequate drainage facilities, which PAB local councillors had been highlighting for a number of years.
It took the floods of July 2007 to make the Highways Department and the Environment Agency to realise that what we had been saying for years had now finally come home to them that the drainage was poor.
Soakaways, for example, are fine in dry weather but utterly useless when continuous rainfall makes the ground saturated.
We pointed out constantly, that drains spaced fifty yards apart were not capturing the water that fell and more drains were needed fifty feet apart.
Surrounding ditches, we told the authorities, needed to be kept clear of debris and dredged on a regular basis, and, we pointed out time and time again that additional housing developments in unsuitable locations only added to the flooding problems.
Our pleas and advice only fell on deaf ears.
We had persuaded both Tewkesbury Borough and Cheltenham Borough Councils to invest in land drainage projects for the longer term. Against the opposition from some councillors who preferred to spend the money elsewhere, we managed to get both councils to invest in a land drainage scheme. The joint cost of both schemes was nearly £1million and a lot of work was done for the money. The problem was that both councils started to lay the pipes at different parts of Prestbury village and we finally finished up with two sets of pipes lying in the ground for several years waiting for the councils, the county highways and the environment agency to come up with a final scheme that would connect up the two sets of pipes.
Like many instances in the past, it took a disastrous flooding situation to make these councils and agencies wake up to the fact that there was a major flooding problem in Prestbury. PAB councillors argued with councils and agencies for months after July 2007 to act seriously with the Prestbury problem, but it wasn’t until the PAB Group wrote to the Secretary of State explaining the situation and our concerns that things started to happen.
Five separate drainage schemes have been introduced in various parts of Prestbury, some small and some large. More drains are appearing and areas that had no drains at all, or very few, are now enjoying their areas without the constant fear of flooding.
In September 2010, the link up of the two sets of pipes will take place together with other flood defence measures, which will divert surface water away from homes.
A great achievement for the PAB Group and shows what can be done.
Update (February 2011) - The construction of the flood alleviation scheme at Prestbury has started on 14 February and will finish in early July 2011.
They will be connecting existing culverts and diverting water from the top of the town through Bowbridge and beyond. This will reduce the risk of flooding for 57 properties between Mill Stream and Noverton Brook.
The construction will be done in a series of works at different locations. Some road closures and traffic management will be necessary, but they will stagger road closures to minimise disruption. They will stop construction during Cheltenham Gold Cup Week. The contractors Birse Civil Ltd. will liaise with the community to minimise disruption to the town.
A plan of the scheme will be available in the public library at Prestbury. This flood alleviation scheme is the culmination of work by Local Authorities, Severn Trent and the Environment Agency to reduce the frequent flooding which has caused considerable disruption and personal hardship to many of the residents in Prestbury.
NEW POWERS FOR LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO STOP ‘GARDEN GRABBING’
The government have implemented the commitment made in the Coalition Agreement to decentralise the planning system by giving Local Authorities the opportunity to prevent overdevelopment of neighbourhoods and ‘garden grabbing’.
Two important statements that will result in amendments to the Planning Policy Statement (PPS3) which effectively, in planning terms, shapes the places where people live and work and supports wider social, environmental and economic objectives and for sustainable communities.
As a result of the recent announcements changes to PPS3 are as follows:-
- Private residential gardens are now excluded from the definition
of previously developed land in Annex B of the statement.
- The national indicative minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare
is deleted from paragraph 47 of the statement.
The Secretary of Statement emphasised that ‘it was for local authorities and communities to take decisions that are best for them, and decide for themselves the best locations and types of development in their areas’.
Whilst this sounds good on paper, the PAB Group are concerned that the local planning authorities will continue to take the decisions based on the excuse that they have consulted with the community and unwanted and destructive back garden proposals will continue to be granted. Local planning authorities and planning committees are not well-known for abiding by, or, working to planning policies in their areas, which is why so many local residents are frustrated by the planning system.
In Cheltenham, the PAB Group will continue to encourage the local planning authority to work to the local plan policies to ensure protection of local environments and the amenities of adjoining land users.
Underground Parking
Cheltenham Borough Council like many other local authorities is short of land for development purposes. Each L.A. is required to demonstrate a 5 year supply of residential land for development. Whenever Borough boundaries are tight the pressure to demonstrate a 5 year supply becomes increasingly more difficult. Cheltenham is in such a delicate position, which is why the P.A.B. Group constantly urges the Borough Council and its planning department to amend its policies to force developers to provide underground parking instead of the easy option of providing surface parking.
Cheltenham Borough Council, like adjoining local authorities, will be required to produce up-to-date development plans to guide future sustainable development and safeguard environmental, social, economic and other key interests, as will Tewkesbury Borough and Gloucester City councils. An updated Joint Core Strategy document is currently under consideration, which, if approved, will change the landscape map of the County with its proposals.
The big test for the P.A.B. Group is to make sure that any changes do not harm significant parts of the Green Belt around Cheltenham and we make even greater effort to use ‘brownfield’ land before green open spaces are used. Whilst we agree that derelict sites are used first, we continue to campaign vigorously for surface car parks in the town to be replaced with underground facilities, which would free-up land on the surface for residential, retail and other employment purposes. If this was pursued by Cheltenham Borough Council and included as a top priority in its Civic Pride aspirations and endorsed with appropriate policies, then the demand to build on green spaces and Green Belt land would be greatly reduced.
A recent landmark Public Inquiry into a planning appeal by the Gloucestershire NHS Trust to allow the Cheltenham General Hospital to build a multi-storey car park close to the town’s open-air Lido was dismissed. In the period leading up to the eventual submission of a planning application by the NHS, P.A.B. councillors urged the hospital management to go for underground parking for the reasons expressed above. Freeing up land currently used by parked cars is a nonsense when land for extensions of the hospital is nearly exhausted. Furthermore, multi-storey car parks are not things of beauty no matter who designs them.
Our pleas for underground car parking fell on deaf ears and we still have a problem for visitors to the hospital as well as the long-suffering staff. The P.A.B. Group Leader wrote a letter to the Editor of the local newspaper following the dismissal of the appeal and we produce it below for information.
Dear Editor,
There is no doubt that the car parking situation at the General Hospital is appalling, not only for visitors but for the staff as well. The situation is not new because we have known for many years that the numerous additions to the original hospital building would mean that the parking situation would become increasingly worse.
Whilst patients, visitors and staff will be disappointed with the decision of the planning inspector, the end result was not unexpected because the visual impact of a multi-storey car park on the area and particularly the Lido was too much. And, secondly, multi-storey car parks are not known for their architectural features, which often meant that they are reluctantly accepted as a facility to serve only as a means to an end.
The question is whether there is an alternative to endless surface car parking across Cheltenham without having to revert to multi-storey car parks. The answer, of course, is that there is providing the will is there and the developers are prepared to spend money on underground parking.
Developers will always argue that the cost of underground parking is too much, but, whilst profit is important, so is the character and appearance of an area.
But, notwithstanding that important point, we must also accept that we will soon be running out of residential and employment building land within the borough and unless we grasp the nettle by insisting that car parking is only allowed below ground in new developments then more attempts to build multi-storey car parks will be on the way.
PAB councillors tried desperately to persuade the hospital management and their agents to seriously consider underground parking when the discussions and seminars took place prior to the submission of a planning application. We failed in our mission even though we pointed out the vast areas of opportunity that could be made available.
If it isn’t cost that is used against our suggestions it is usually the poor quality of the soil below ground, or, the power of the mighty River Chelt that prevents the digging out by the contractors.
Pointing out that the Hyde Park underground parking is successful in spite of the River Serpentine, or, the underground parking below part of the lake at Annecy, our twin town in France, has little or no impact with local developers.
So, what is the answer? It seems to me that nothing short of new legislation from Central Government, changing, or, adding to planning policies a section dealing with underground parking is needed.
The need is urgent before we run out of land.
Latest December 2010
At the Cheltenham Borough Council meeting on December 13th 2010 councillors were asked to consider amendments to the Cheltenham Civic Pride Urban Design Framework Supplementary Planning Document.
The Cabinet member for the Built Environment proposed a change to the wording of the clause dealing with underground parking in the North Place and Portland Street Development Brief.
The change proposed is as follows:- “Developers are likely to be asked to consider two different options for the public car park; one underground and the other over-ground.”
PAB councillors voted against the change because it diluted the original clause that put pressure on a future developer to provide underground parking when development of the Portland Street surface car park took place.
PAB councillors expressed the view that the amendment is weak ands allows the developer to opt out of a much needed facility, which would free up land for much needed residential purposes.
The Liberal Democrat administration, who had met for an hour before the start of the Council meeting to decide which items of the agenda they were going to support, loyally put their hands up for the amendment irrespective of what arguments were put forward during the debate.
Perhaps Lenin was right when he suggested that ‘Democracy is not identical with majority rule…’
When votes are taken that affect the future well-being of the town they should be free and unfettered by party politics.
Pittville Park
PAB Councillors are members of the ‘Friends of Pittville’ and we work closely with them to ensure that the park remains a high priority with Cheltenham Borough Council. We fully support the aims of the group and are particularly pleased that the restoration of Pittville Gates will be a focus for the ‘Friends’ group which is also included in the development area for the Council’s Civic Pride Project.
It is extremely disappointing that despite the amount of money that has already been spent on the project to replace the bridge across the lower lake, we still do not have a bridge for visitors to the park to use. We continue to urge Council officers to find a way of providing the means for a replacement bridge.
It was good to see the bandstand in front of the Pump Room repaired following the damage last year. The security of the park is regularly discussed at the Police Community meetings and it is generally agreed that the park gates should be locked each evening. Any savings achieved by leaving the gates unlocked are soon spent repairing the areas that have been vandalised.
Libraries Should Not Be Seen As An Easy Touch
Apart from those with an ideological motive we doubt whether anyone would support the plan of closing libraries including mobile libraries that serve outlying country areas. Most libraries are the hub of community life; they have a homely feel to them and the librarians who work there are professional people who know more about books than anyone else. They assist with the selection of books in a friendly manner and it is one of the few places where local residents can go for a friendly chat and without having to spend money.
Many of our libraries are used out of hours by community groups; if a library is closed, it may not be just the loss of a library but also the loss of a community centre.
The proposals by Gloucestershire County Council need careful examination.
We have been told that the Council needs to cut its budget by 28 per cent, but if its planned closure of 23 libraries out of 43 in the county, plus a reduction of service in others and the total closure of the five mobile libraries is implemented then this will mean the library budget will be cut by 43 per cent.
This is not only unfair but it is a crass decision by the council because it is saying that it is in order to subject the library service to a cut amounting to 15% more than the official requirement.
The library service is crucial to the life and soul of communities and the loss of the mobile libraries to small villages and some as large as Northleach will be devastating; what is more, the cost of the county library service is infinitesimal when the overall size of the county council budget is considered.
There is talk in some communities of finding a solution that might enable the local library to stay open for a few days per week; others are considering a ‘link service’ with other libraries. There is talk of libraries sharing its premises with other organisations, but most suggestions, if not all, will need eager volunteers to run the service for free and not just for the short term.
Communities know from experience that there is an exuberance of support for a local project, but it is difficult to sustain the enthusiasm in the longer term and even more difficult to provide the income to keep a community service going.
Research by PAB member’s show that Gloucestershire residents borrow over 3 million books each year and that must mean that a similar number of people must visit our libraries too.
We believe there are better ways of saving money than penalising those who rely so much on the library service. We urge the county council to think again.
Index of Buildings of Local Interest
The PAB were instrumental in getting the local Council to update and bring back into use the Index of Buildings of Local Interest following the demolition of worthwhile historic buildings in the past, which we believed were worthy of retention. Most of these old buildings are part of our heritage.
Cheltenham has many interesting buildings and structures. Over 2,600 are listed on the Statutory Register as being of national importance. However, there are many which fail to meet the strict national criteria but still make a special contribution to the history, appearance, character and cultural value of the town. The Council recognises these in its Index of Buildings of Local Interest which currently contains around 450 buildings and structures that are valued by the community.
The Index is reviewed annually and the public are consulted on proposed inclusions. Inclusion on the Index does not affect any planning rights at the properties identified. However, the Council will give careful consideration to the local importance of the property and its setting when considering any applications for planning or other consents. The Council may consider action to protect the building if it is considered to be under threat of demolition or damage.
Extract from Budget Statement to the Council by the Leader of the PAB Group. Feb 11th 2011
The PAB group recognise that each year the setting of the council budget becomes more difficult. In normal times (if there are such things) we have recognised that both political administrations have done well to balance the books and present a budget that has been acceptable to the local taxpayer.
This year – the task has been made more difficult because of the imposed savage cuts by the coalition government, which is why, as in previous years, we will support the budget proposals as presented by the Liberal Democrats.
There are few people who do not believe that the imposed cuts have been too deep and carried out too quickly and the savings that local councils are being asked to make could have long-lasting effects on local communities --- and who will take the blame when the cuts start to bite?
Is it not a strange phenomena where we have a central government that cuts the amount of money it gives to local government and then passes the responsibility for making the savings to each and every one of the local authorities in the U.K.?
We are not surprised that 90 Liberal Democrat council chiefs have complained to their leader about the speed of the cuts. We don’t know whether our council leader was amongst the 90 but we would like to think that this council will write to the government expressing our concerns for the future of our local services.
Planning and Appeals
The two motions below were presented to Cheltenham Borough Council on 27th June 2011 by the People Against Bureaucracy Group (PAB) and the Conservative Group. It was a joint effort to strengthen a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) that had been approved in June 2009. The original purpose of the SPD was to manage the number of planning applications concerning development on back gardens (Garden Grabbing).
By and large, the SPD was a useful tool in the planning process: it was seen by the majority of Planning Inspectors as a ‘material consideration’ and they also claimed ‘the SPD carried significant weight in their considerations’. This, of course, was encouraging, but as in past situations, there have always been those who have wanted to find a way of getting round a particular planning policy. It was because of these perceived loopholes that the two groups wanted a new working group to review the document and report back to the Council with their proposals. With a small amendment the motion was approved by Council.
MOTION 1
It is now two years since the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Garden Land and Infill Sites was published and a first review of the document should be undertaken.
Parts of the SPD are out-of-date as a result of changes introduced by Planning Policy Statement (PPS 3). There are also differences of opinion regarding the interpretation of parts of the document from all sources, which indicates that the time has come for the SPD to be reviewed and updated. We propose that the members of the original working group, plus replacements and additions where required, should be reconvened as soon as possible with the aim of reporting back to the Council meeting on October 10th 2011.
The purpose of the second motion was to improve the existing planning appeal system, which had fallen into disrepute since the Council decided to replace the Planning Appeals Officer with a new system. In theory, the case officer, having prepared a report and presented it to the planning committee with a recommendation, would, if the applicant went to appeal, take responsibility for the appeal until a final decision was made by the Planning Inspectorate. It sounded good, but when the case officer was too busy, or was absent from work, the appeal case was given to another officer. Eventually, this became the normal way of doing things. When an appeal went to a public hearing the Council engaged professional planning consultants to present the reasons why the Council refused the application.
The cost of this is unknown, but when an attending member of the public writes to complain that the ‘professional consultant’ was so poor she claimed she could have done a better job from the back of the hall, then something needed to be done. Another resident claimed that at the hearing she attended, the ‘professional planning consultant said nothing at all’. On that evidence alone the PAB and Conservative Groups felt that a review of the planning appeal system needed.
The Cabinet Deputy for the Built Environment (Liberal Democrat), the person responsible to ensure our development control and appeal systems are ‘fit for purpose’ didn’t agree and all he could say was that the motion to review the local planning appeal system was ‘a nonsense’. The PAB Group and the Conservative Group were surprised by the attitudes of the ruling Liberal Democrat Group, but following a ‘three-line whip’ voted against any review of the existing appeal system. What are they afraid of?
MOTION 2
The present system of dealing with planning appeals appears to be flawed.
Whether a planning application is refused by the committee, or as a result of an officer’s delegated recommendation to refuse and the applicant goes to appeal, we believe a substantial statement should be made in writing to the Planning Inspectorate. The statement should set out all the reasons given for the refusal and carried out professionally. The present system of sending a copy of the case officer’s report to committee, plus a copy of the minutes to the Inspectorate is inadequate.
We propose that a time-limited review of the Council’s approach to planning appeals, through a member group, or an officer report to the next Council meeting, should be undertaken. TheCouncil should also consider the re-employment of a qualified Appeals Officer.