Subject: FW: Cheltenham Plan Examination - Statements published Attachments: Pollock-215 M4+M3-SchoolRebuttal.docx; Pollock-215 M1+M8 VisionClause-C TransportModification.docx From: Ken Pollock Sent: 22 February 2019 14:54 To: Tracey Smith Subject: Re: Cheltenham Plan Examination - Statements published Dear Ms Smith, I did explain (in my initial email, below) that the 'Edited Extract' of the 'SPS Documents is a partial (biased) selection, in the form as it is Appendixed by GCC. By omitting section D48 the Extract hides the large pupil demand across the North of Cheltenham which travels out daily to Tewkesbury Secondaries, located in Bishops Cleeve (and Winchcombe). Moreover, by omitting Sections D30 to D34 of the 'SPS', the Extract conceals the extent to which ‘demand (“pupil product”) from new housing’ is predominantly shown (predicted by GCC) to be arising in Hatherley-Leckhampton, and to be amounting to ‘strategic’ scale. As 'removal' of the school from MD5 appears to have been entertained (and quantified in the Trajectory discussion) in the Matter-3 hearing as triggering an "extra 100" houses (plus an inadmissible extra quantity for Bovis inside MD5), I trust that the justification evidence for this school being added late into Leckhampton will remain open for (inextricably linked) Matter-4, considering that the only argument being advanced for subtracting GCC's two fields from the JCS-indicated LGS is the claimed school "need". I maintain that the Need for this Secondary school being in South Cheltenham is sufficiently complex (and made impenetrable by incomplete evidence disclosure) to warrant time for its separate, thorough assessment/Inquiry. (It would also be unjust for the County Council to attempt to take the route of giving itself approval upon such contested 'Valued Landscape', and therein give itself Transport approval where the quantum of impact has already been ruled to be "severe" for 650 units.) CBC can produce no evidence of any independent work done to “assess” GCC's school request, neither before its sudden Plan insertion in late 2017 nor since, merely pointing to GCC’s (limited and heavily criticised) documents. The big drawback of the JCS was that having needed so long to unravel the defective Housing allocations, there was not time to investigate/solve the glaring Transport 'holes' (at roads-deficient Cheltenham, rather than at the other Districts). Similarly, the CLP should not be pressured by officers to let pass (or give any weight to) this unjustified School proposal due to programme constraint. Inevitably, the importance and sensitivity of Leckhampton, below the Cotswold Escarpment, does require considerable debate (especially in view of its extreme attractiveness to developers). I doubt that the arguments which I have worked to set out exceed in "quantity" the submissions of the massed developers; and I have no fear as regards quality and veracity of the competing arguments. I gave evidence at my first planning Inquiry in Cheltenham 30 years ago, and I have never faced such a quantity of developers agents plus a County Council (all taking airtime), and then found myself curtailed by a surprising 'time constraint' when trying to rebut their spoken assertions. In the absence of any credible further work having been published (for due review) subsequent to the JCS outline position of "200 houses", it is difficult to see that any higher density in MD5 can be justified (firmed up) yet, in the same timescale as the bulk of the CLP. Finally, thank you for publishing my ‘Procedural Objection’ in the Examination Library as ED020. Please forward this email exchange to the Inspector. I do not ask for it to be a formal submission (although I would have no objection to that being the case). Yours sincerely, Ken Pollock Attached: Pollock-215 M4+M3-SchoolRebuttal.pdf P.S. Under Matter-1, the Inspector invited me to propose a revision to Vision Theme C. I have attached this as a separate document: Pollock-215 M1+M8 VisionClause-C TransportModification.pdf On Friday, 15 February 2019, 13:22:48 GMT, wrote: Dear Mr Pollock, Further to my email below, the Inspector has asked me to flag up that the School Places Strategy document is already before the examination as an appendix to Glos CC, Dept of Education statement submissions - M3-1321 SPS Document - Edited Extract Kind regards, Tracey Smith Programme Officer Cheltenham Borough Council Local Plan - Examination T: 01242 264175 E: tracey.smith@cheltenham.gov.uk W: www.cheltenham.gov.uk/LPexamination From: Tracey Smith Sent: 06 February 2019 12:34 To: 'Ken Pollock' Subject: RE: Cheltenham Plan Examination - Statements published Dear Mr Pollock, The Inspector has advised that she does not require the document to be added as an exam document but has noted the contents of your email. Many thanks. Kind regards, Tracey Smith Programme Officer Cheltenham Borough Council Local Plan - Examination T: 01242 264175 E: tracey.smith@cheltenham.gov.uk W: www.cheltenham.gov.uk/LPexamination From: Ken Pollock Sent: 05 February 2019 12:11 To: Tracey Smith Subject: RE: Cheltenham Plan Examination - Statements published Dear Ms Smith, 1 Thank you, the link is fine now. (I did forward this snag to PlanningPolicy@CBC and Alex Bethell replied.) I have just re-read my Appendix-4 and find it a fine condensed introduction to the Cheltenham and Gloucestershire situation post-JCS (and to this county's sub-optimal planning to date). 2 Matters 3 & 4 may shade into one another, as GCC's proposed Secondary school is now requesting to move from MD5 into the JCS-indicated LGS area. Just a week ago, GCC's consultant (439) submitted a cut-down version of Gloucestershire's 'School Places Strategy' document (labelled "SPS Document - Edited Extract") under Matter-3. As it excludes the data for the Cheltenham "feeder" Primary schools, and for the very relevant Secondary schools just outside CBC's boundary, I emailed the Director of Education yesterday asking for a complete copy and was directed to a webpage: https://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/education-and-learning/school-planning-and- projects/gloucestershire-school-projects/, where the document is now available as a blue bar/button, (14.5 Mb). I also attach the document, below. I believe the complete document should be available as an Examination document. 'External' webpages have a habit of changing/vanishing in Gloucestershire, (and undated additions being inserted). Regards, Ken Pollock