Skip to main content

Joint Core Strategy - Issues and Options

Joint Core Strategy - Issues and Options

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
ResponseOptionTextDate
#714423

4.1.13 Gladman consider that the vision, key challenges and objectives of the adopted JCS remain relevant and should be carried through into the review.

 

01 Apr 2019 15:57
#714414

The vision, key challenges and objectives set out in the JCS are relevant to the JCS review. The JCS review should continue to consider the unmet housing need for the joint authorities that include Gloucester City and Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Borough.

 

01 Apr 2019 15:39
#713403

On the basis of the information published in the IOD, we would suggest that the vision and objectives needs to be amended. As it reads, the vision and objectives are considered to be generic and applicable to most local authority areas. In response, to better reflect the emerging growth aspirations for the JCS area in terms of housing and the local economy, specific references should be made to those related policies and strategies with which the JCS will need to be aligned to. This could include, for example, the emerging Gloucestershire 2050 Project and the gfirst Local Economic Partnership Strategic Economic Plan for Gloucestershire. In this way, the vision and objectives would be more locally-based and measurable against local targets set out in the emerging JCS.

Specific to Objective 7, a commitment should be made to not only delivering a wide choice of quality homes, but also deliver the minimum number of homes required to meet the local housing needs of the JCS area.

28 Mar 2019 12:49
#711497

Support existing strategic objectives.

27 Mar 2019 15:36
#711448

That this question is posed at all goes to the heart of our comments at, primarily, 1.

above. It is a distraction from what should be the primary purpose of the review,

specifically:

  • Retail review
  • Housing delivery at Gloucester and Tewkesbury
  • (Presumably) shortfall against trajectory of deliverable sites.

No doubt detailed challenges will come out of these areas. However they will be real challenges with real solutions rather than just more weasel words which do not achieve anything more than somnolence.

One challenge that may emerge is that of infrastructure delivery. The JCS existing policy on infrastructure delivery is woolly and toothless. Thus the large site at NW Cheltenham has stalled for two years apparently as a result of stops placed by Highways England.

We suggest that what is needed is a more businesslike approach to what is essentially project management. This should set out what infrastructure is needed to support a strategic development, who is going to provide it, when it is to be provided and who is going to pay for it.

27 Mar 2019 14:55
#711396

(1)
At NorthWest and West Cheltenham, JCS-1 completely failed on Transport to plan the vaunted "improved infrastructure" "for new and existing residents".
DS7 was never truthfully viable, and currently remains stalled at both Cheltenham UEs.
This needs to be addressed before any further work on JCS-2.

(2)
The 'Objectives' need to be numbered in rough order of importance.
'Climate Change' has to be Objective-1.
Thereafter, 'Environment' needs to be Objective-2 because it can only be meaningful as a possible pre-veto (after which the other Objectives can all be aimed for, as they do no overlap or conflict among themselves).

The principles of doing no avoidable harm to valued environment, and minimising environmental impact, needs to be built in clearly to Policy, (with no trading-off of Environment for cheapness or expediency).

27 Mar 2019 14:26
#711289

The JCS Vision as set out at paragraph 6.2 currently references the end of the JCS Plan Period which is 2031 and, therefore, it would need to be updated to reflect the new plan period.

The JCS Objectives are set out at paragraph 6.4 of the IOP. Strategic Objection 8 is concerned with delivery a wide choice of quality homes. Reference to delivering quality development is supported but this should not be the only part of the housing based objective. The Councils are reminded of the Government objective to significantly boost the supply of housing and the first bullet point under this objective should be amended to reflect this.

27 Mar 2019 13:06
#711264

The vision, key challenges and objectives remain relevant.

27 Mar 2019 12:28
#711255

The objectives set out in the Issues and Options are considered to be appropriate and still relevant for the JCS to consider in this review.

However, in line with stated national policy it may be sensible to add a new objective or amending Objective 7 to reflect the weight Government has placed on making homes affordable to existing and future residents – in addition to simply providing choice and quality. This includes making sure enough sites are allocated to deliver affordable housing.

Objective 7 should be worded as follows: "Delivering a wide choice of quality homes that are affordable to existing and future residents.

27 Mar 2019 12:12
#710029

As set out in the recent Technical consultation on updates to national planning policy and guidance (October 2018) the Government’s priorities and the theme of reforms undertaken over the last 18 months, from the White Paper Fixing the broken housing market, to the revision of the NPPF, are to deliver more and better-designed homes, and to do so faster. This is in response to the broad consensus across the political spectrum that the UK is in the grip of a housing crisis. Nationally, the average house now costs eight times the average income and whilst the causes of the housing crisis are complex, at the most basic level, as a nation we have not been building enough homes.

MMG broadly supports the vision set out in the Adopted JCS. However, it considers that simply stating: "improved access to housing will have addressed the needs of young families, single people and the elderly" does not adequately convey the importance and the significance of the house building programme that will be required to deliver the homes needed, to not only address need, but also the issue of relative affordability brought about by decades of undersupply. MMG suggest the following modification to Para 2, second sentence of the vision: "The character and identity of individual communities will have been retained while a significant increase in the amount of homes built will have brought the relative cost of housing to income down and addressed the needs of young families, single people and the elderly."

MMG welcomes the recognition in the Key Challenges that there has been insufficient delivery of housing resulting in a high house price to earnings ratio. However, this affordability gap has continued to widen since the 2011 figures quoted in the Adopted JCS. In March 2017 the ONS released housing affordability data for England in Wales up to and including 2016. In Cheltenham the average house price is was 8.8 times earnings in 2016 compared to 7.5 times in 2011. In Gloucester the average house price was 6.2 times earnings in 2016 compared to 5.5 times in 2011. In Tewkesbury the average house prices was 8.1 times earnings in 2016 compared to 7 times in 2011.

MMG considers that the Key Challenges should reflect the most up-to-date evidence. They should also acknowledge that the affordability gap has been increasing year on year.   

 

MMG broadly supports Strategic Objective 8 – Delivering a wide choice of quality homes. However, in light of the above they suggest the following modification to the first bullet point:

"Delivering, at least, a sufficient number of market and affordable houses to meet housing need and arrest the widening affordability gap."

 

25 Mar 2019 11:59
Next pageLast page

Powered by INOVEM Consult™ - Online Consultation Software