Agenda item

MJC introduced the application as above, for outline permission to cover lay-out, access and scale, with appearance and landscaping subject to a reserved matters application. A fundamental consideration for this scheme is Policy EM2, due to the potential loss of employment land, and the applicant has been required to demonstrate that there is no demand for the site for new-build offices.  Officers have worked closely with the applicant, and scrutinised the proposal.  As the site appears unlikely to be used for B1 development, the on-balance recommendation is that the scheme be supported, with authority delegated back to officers to resolve an outstanding highways matter – the County want road changed shared surface. The update on pink paper summarises the marketing campaign, much of which is included in the report.

Public Speaking:

Mr David Keyte, agent, in support

Outlined the recent planning history and marketing of the site, which originally formed part of a larger 5ha site occupied by Woodward Diesel Systems and Lucan Bryce providing contaminated Class B2 floor space.  In 2010 permission was granted for employment generating floorspace for Asda and 7608 square metres of B1 use.  Pure Offices occupy 2259 sq m, with consent for a further 3384 for Kier, so the larger site is on course to deliver 74% of the consented B1 and employment floorspace across 90% of the former industrial site.  The application site has been available for sale or to let since 2003; following decontamination, a marketing campaign was started in 2009, which brought Asda to Cheltenham.  Robert Hitchins has continued to market to site, via a webpage, brochure, boards and hoardings, plus more recently targeted websites and local commercial agents.  It has been offered at realistic rates and has attracted some interest which has been actively pursued, but interest has continually waned due to rental levels, market conditions, the out-of-centre location, lead-in times, or the interested firms not being committed to a move.  The site has been available for 12 years and actively marketed for the last seven years, with no firm interest.

Member debate:

LS:  the on-going issue here is one which Members have considered before – the shortage of both employment and residential land in Cheltenham won’t go away, and the planning authority has to consider the potential of this site for both uses.  Members have visited the site twice on Planning View; it is sandwiched between Asda and the Nuffield, close to the A40, so not the most pleasant area for residential development but a fantastic, prime location for employment, with excellent links and long-term prospects.  The speaker said there is no likelihood of the land being used for employment in the foreseeable future, but that depends on how far forward we can see.  We need jobs for young people, maybe a technical hub for GCHQ – this land should be kept for long-term employment use.

BF:  has visited the site a few times, and after the first time, spent just 20 minutes on the internet, during which time found 30k sq metres of employment space available in Cheltenham now, not included Grovefield Way.  There is clearly no interest in this land, not even from GCHQ; the pink papers show a massive move would be needed to make it viable in this town.  The Pure building still has a lot of floorspace left to rent, as at Windsor Street – though realises this may be a crude measure. We know the town is short of its five-year housing land supply, but no-one has said there is a shortage of employment land – there are brownfield and greenfield sites, such as Alstone Lane and Bonella Switches, which have been available for a long time but no-one wants them.  There are other sites, some of a few hundred square metres, some new, some not so new., carrying in rent and price. Members should look at policy EM2, and have a serious debate.  The JCS talks about some housing land becoming available through windfall sites such as this, and the Phoenix Works on Leckhampton Road.   Employers are working in smaller, tighter spaces nowadays.  Has concerns, if a short internet search with just one agent showed 30k square metres.  Can see nothing wrong with this proposal.

CH:  disagrees with BF.  We need to promote employment land in the borough.  This land has been actively marketed since 2009, but the country has been in recession; things are happening now with government funding and local enterprise partnerships.  This is the wrong time to be losing employment sites such as this.  We have no control over the loss of some office blocks, but where we do have control, we should make sure employment land such as this is retained.  It would be wrong to start eroding employment land at this time, and give the wrong message about Cheltenham as a place for business relocation.    

KS :  is curious  about what the speaker said about this land not being marketable due to it not being in the town centre, when it seems that every time an employment site becomes available in town – such as Pate Court or the Kraft building – it is turned into residential accommodation for old people.  There will soon be no employment space in the town centre. Is concerned about the loss of the employment land, and that the site is being dismissed as not suitable for offices.  Can’t it be used for something other than offices?  Could this site not be used for light industrial units, similar to Mead Road?  Can see why, in principle, a developer would want this site for residential, but we have to have somewhere for people to work.

SW:  is torn between BF’s and CH’s viewpoints.  Would not want to live on this site, between an office block and a supermarket, but has sympathy with the argument that the are many square metres of employment land available  at the moment, making it very understandable that the applicant wants to put houses on this site.  However, would make a plea that, if Members vote to permit the scheme, we should remember that this is only a red line proposal, not a full planning application – and we must insist on at least 40% affordable housing when the reserved matters application comes in.  Will be extremely disappointed if this is not the case.

PB:  this is the most important application being considered tonight, and the outcome will have a significant impact on the town.  Will move to refuse.  Not long ago, CBC commissioned the Athey Report, and a number of its observations give credibility to this move, including the net loss of the town’s employment land from 1991, the lack of B-class and office space, the fact that 80% of existing stock is less than 500 sq metres, and the lack of quality sites.  BF has names some potential sites, but the quality and nature of the sites is critical.  There is in particular a sustained demand for premises in excess of 1000 sq metres across the borough.  Has spoken with business people and knows there is a crisis in this area.  The town has already lost many companies – Chelsea Building Society, Kraft, Spirax, Pate Court, Eagle Star – all good quality and well-located sites – and more could leave the area if no suitable alternative sites are available.  There is no better site for employment than the site being considered tonight – close to the M5, GCHQ, car parking, access to supermarket.  This site should not be used for residential development.  The issue here is not the lack of demand, but money – rates are increasing in Cheltenham, with £20 per sq foot needed for new build, and the Market improving means rents will also increase.  We have to be consistent here; the proposals at Tim Fry Land Rovers and Alma Road Garage were refused.  The applicant at Alma Road said it was unviable to develop the site for employment, and tonight’s applicant is saying the same.  This isn’t CBC’s problem - they knew what the rents would be – and it gives the wrong message to the business community.  The applicant has made it clear that there will be no affordable housing on this site.We should take the applicant’s comments about actively marketing the site with a pinch of salt - a one-page brochure, board outside and inclusion on a website.  It is not about lack of demand; it is about price.  This site will go; it is a quality site and we should stick by our Local Plan.  On the subject of  business rates, is there anything more the borough can do to relax the rates to encourage users?  The NPPF may advise against the long-term protection of sites with no prospects, but this site has every prospect of being used; it is crazy to believe it won’t ever be developed as a business site.  To permit tonight’s application would show a lack of consistency, and increase vulnerability to refusing other similar applications.

MJC, in response:

-       agrees with PB that this is an important application and confirms that it is the most balanced recommendation officers have made for a long time;

-       a lot of PB’s comments are very credible, but officers have had to consider the NPPF, which recommends approval of planning permissions wherever possible, and avoidance of long-term protection of sites;

-       in view of the length of time this site has been on the market, and the housing supply situation, officers have made what they consider the right recommendation, but could also make this a reason to refuse;

-       Member debate tonight has been balanced but if Committee wants to defend Policy EM2 at an appeal, this will be a legitimate decision;

-       the applications at Tim Fry Land Rovers and Alma Road Garage were not supported by any degree of marketing; the sites were occupied and the leases artificially terminated.  These are different sites with different issues, and cannot be compared;

-       officers could have come down on either side with this scheme, and will be guided by Members.

AL:  fully concurs with PB, and applauds his passionate argument.  This is a prime employment site, and has been the subject of only nervous marketing.   We are awaiting forward guidance from the JCS and Cheltenham Plan, and must hold our nerve until then.  There is no question that this application should be refused.

MS:  equally supports PB, and CH regarding employment sites in the area.  This is a prime employment site.  Will support the move to refuse.

CN:  supports the councillors who have spoken tonight about the importance of this employment site, but a number of issues still need to be considered.  BF talked about the need for employment land demonstrated by the Athey Report, and the JCS evidence also shows a shortage of employment land.  The Inspector is not producing an interim statement, so now is the time to hold our nerve.  There is a lot of policy about to be decided and confirmed.  It’s true that the town has no five-year land supply and needs houses, but it also needs jobs, to keep the balance.  This application is the most important of the night, and appreciates MJC’s honesty regarding how officers reached their recommendation.  Is underwhelmed by the three-page summary of marketing; if suspicious, might think it a little odd that the marketing campaign started in February and the application was submitted in June.  Could question how much the developers actually pushed for this land to be taken up for employment; with the current financial situation and cost of new build and rents, they may well feel residential is the only way to go.  Has the B2/B8 issue been explored fully – using the site for industrial/distribution storage??  - the location is perfect for the M5. One final point on the business rates issue raised by PB:  the maths don’t add up to encourage the developer to go down the employment site route.  We need to engage with developers, make business rates more attractive for them to develop land for business and employment.  If this application is refused, further work should be done, not just fighting an appeal but also looking at the business rate situation to see how things can be altered to help us achieve what we want.

LS:  to BF, not all employment land is equal.  He has talked about the glut of employment land available, but the specific merits of the land need to be considered.  This country has a fast-growing economy and we need to participate fully and not be left behind.  We have to make decisions which will have no adverse effect on future generations, in this case choosing between high-quality employment land and low-quality housing land.

PT:  agrees with PB and other speakers, but does not consider SW’s plea for 40% affordable housing a very good idea.  To have this amount of affordable housing in one location could be detrimental to the area.

BF:  no-one has explained why Grovefield Way remained empty for 20 years, before the recession – a greenfield site, with the same sort of accommodation as tonight’s site, now being developed as a BMW showroom.  If we hold our nerve for ever, there’s a chance these sites will stay empty for ever.  If Grovefield Way had been developed for houses, they would all be lived in now.  GCHQ has no interest in this site, and the  JCS has allocated employment land in different locations. It has safeguarded land at Hayden Lane , but the Inspector is asking if it can be brought forward early; if it is, it will cast a shadow on other employment sites; the need for employment land is not unlimited.  History shows that there is no demand for this employment land – not one brick has been laid at Honeybourne Place, and an application has now been submitted to turn the top of the Eagle Star building into two luxury apartments.  The demand as detailed in the Athey Report is wrong  - there are many available areas which will never be used.  The early applications on JCS allocations were for housing, not employment.  We are kidding ourselves if we think we can buck the market.  The reason why businesses aren’t moving to Cheltenham or moving away is because the price is wrong.  We decided as CBC not to move to new-build premises as we can buy cheaper. 

AM:  there are two strands to the argument here, specific and strategic.  Regarding loss of this employment land, it’s true that Planning Committee has approved housing on employment land before, but generally speaking these have been old-fashioned sites, not fit for purpose as employment land.  This isn’t the case here – this is an ideal business site, close to the motorway, and not particularly suitable as residential land due to its proximity to other uses.    The wider issue is that the JCS identifies the need for housing and also for employment land.  This site is part of the calculation, and now is not the right time to be changing its use from employment to residential.  The Government proposes changes to NPPF and may change the rules, taking matters out of our control in the future –but tonight’s proposal has to be considered on its own merits, and it isn’t wise to pre-empt by changing the use of this site.  In addition, the marketing strategy set out by the applicant is not the best.  In conclusion, this application is premature, and there are very good reasons to retain the site as employment land.

AC:  agrees with PB.  If the application is permitted, there will be 27 families living on an island, nowhere near facilities – schools, medical centres – with nowhere for children to play.  And this could be just the beginning; if  Kier backs out, we could end up with housing all over the site.  Cannot support this proposal in any way.

CN:  SW and PT have referred to 40% affordable housing, but we should remember that this is only an aspiration in the JCS; the latest figure of 25-30% is more justifiable.  BF has talked about Eagle Star being converted from employment to residential use because of no demand for the office space, but understands that the building currently enjoys 90% occupancy; the owners want to convert to residential use because there is more money in it.  Agrees with earlier comments about business rates; if this could only be sorted out, it could incentivise owners to provide employment and residential use.

CH:  to BF, what is driving this is not the need to house people but the need to build houses. We need work places and employment land in order to grow; we don’t need another housing bubble.  Is not sure that the houses proposed for this site are what are needed at the moment.  We need need affordable housing, which this won’t provide.  It will fuel the bubble. 

MJC, in response:

-       if Members move to refuse, they should add a separate refusal reason relating to the lack of an S106 agreement for affordable housing and education.  There is no proof that 40% of the housing is achievable, and we would lose the opportunity to fight this  at appeal;

-       we have to be mindful of what the NPPF says – to be positive and not hold on to sites which the market suggests there is no need for;

-       there have been various comments about ‘holding our nerve’ but the Government says we should listen to the market, and if there is no demand for the land for employment, that should determine what is built here;

-       it’s true that this may change in two or three years, but we need to assess the evidence in light of the NPPF at this time.  This would be a credible argument to defend at appeal if Members want to go down that route.

KS:  there is demand for employment land in Cheltenham – B1, B8 - Mead Road units are never empty.  Is not satisfied that consideration of other uses for this land has been looked at enough.  If there is no market for office use, the developers should look at other types of employment land.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit, subject to S106 agreement

1 in support

14 in objection

RECOMMENDATION NOT APPROVED

Vote on PB’s move to refuse, on EM2, and lack of S106 agreement

14 in support

1 in objection

CARRIED – REFUSE