Agenda item

 

Application Number:			15/00321/OUT
Location:	Cotswold BMW, Tewkesbury Road, Cheltenham
Proposal:	Outline Planning Application for up to 3, 892 sq.m of Class A1 (shops) floorspace, up to 603 sq.m of A4 (drinking establishment) floorspace and up to 1, 395 sq.m of D2 (gym) floorspace with associated parking.
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit subject to a 106 Obligation
Committee Decision:			Permit subject to 106 obligation
Letters of Rep:		3	Update Report:		Officer comments; further suggested conditions; representation on behalf of owners of The Brewery and Regent Arcade

 

MJC introduced the application as above, informing Members that a letter of intent has been received,

naming TK Maxx and Brantano (Jones the Bootmaker) as the likely end users.  A retail analysis and sequential test have been carried out, assessing the likely impact this development may have on the vitality of the town centre.  Viability has also been independently assessed.  Sequentially, more preferable sites are available, such as The Brewery and North Place, but with TK Maxx as the anchor, these sites are unsuitable due to their proximity to the town centre.  However, the application doesn’t establish the necessity for TK Maxx as the anchor tenant, so this must carry limited weight.  It is felt that the proposal will have limited impact on the town centre, in view of the arrival of John Lewis and the lack of representations from developers at North Place.  It is this absence of impact that tilts the balance in favour of approval, even though there are retail policies to promote town centres.  To turn down the application for this narrow reason – its questionable impact on town centre – would not be representative of the positive decision making advocated in the NPPF. Further detailed conditions are set out in the blue update to restrict how the development can operate, sale of goods, and the requirement for a legal agreement concerning the dual presence of retailers in and out of town.  

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr James Griffin, Hunter Page Planning, in support

Thanked officers for their hard work on this application, for the balanced report and recommendation to permit subject to conditions and legal agreement.  With the BMW flagship showroom progressing well and due to open in summer 2016,  the owners have been looking at alternate uses for the Tewkesbury Road site, which has been subject to wide marketing.  Despite the size and location of the site, there has been no interest from the motor trade.  Acknowledged officer concerns, but with TK Maxx and Brantano as the named end users, the proposal presents a unique business model. Cheltenham has a strong retail centre and will not be disadvantaged, particularly with John Lewis coming to the town.  North Place is too close to TK Maxx’s and Jones’s existing town centre premises for those retailers to want to open additional stores there, but understands officers’ concerns that they may leave the town centre altogether and has therefore worked with officers on conditions and legal agreements to cover this issue.  The proposal will bring further economic benefit for the town, with 120 full-time jobs and a revival of this gateway site with a well-designed building.  All planning considerations are in its favour, together with a wide range of conditions and legal agreement to protect the town centre.

 

 

Member debate:

PB:  this is a hugely difficult application, one of quite a few recently where officers could have gone down one of two routes; in this case, they have gone down the approval route, but all agree it is a very narrow shout.  The importance of the town centre cannot be overstated.  Cheltenham’s retail offer is huge, a major factor in making it a key tourist area, and significant in the crucial matter of jobs and the economy.  Is mindful to move to refuse the application, but will gauge the opinion of other councillors before doing so.

 

Two of the most significant investors in the town centre who are together work millions of pounds to Cheltenham, have objected to this proposal.  Is proud of the way Cheltenham is going with The Brewery and John Lewis, but we are have strong competition from Birmingham and Bristol, and with this application we are in danger of providing further competition to our own town centre just one mile away.  The proposal will, without question, have an impact on the town centre.  If further similar applications are permitted, we will end up with a mini-town down Tewkesbury Road – the increasingly significant retail offer will pose a real threat to the town centre – and while it’s good that jobs will be created near to where people live, jobs in the town centre will be lost at the same time. 

 

It’s feasible to argue the impact of the consequential increase in offer at the retail park – these are very much the kind of goods available in town centres, not just the bulky type of offer associated with out of town retail – will significantly compete with the town centre  and attract more retailers out of town, creating ‘Cheltenham 2’ on Tewkesbury Road. 

 

Regarding the sequential offer on the blue update, this is a different side of the coin. There are clearly other opportunities for retail use in the town centre, and the availability can be interpreted in different ways.  We have to take a long term view.  If TK Maxx agrees to stay in the town for five years, what will happen next?  It is currently a key anchor tenant in the Regent Arcade. 

 

There are good grounds to refuse this application on the sequential test and impact, though accepts that this is a fine judgement.

 

JF:  disagrees with PB.  Cheltenham has a thriving town centre now, with John Lewis coming, the Regent Arcade almost full with move from the Beechwood Arcade, and The Brewery development.  We are looking at two different sets of criteria.  Personally dislikes shopping at the retail park but enjoys the buzz of the town centre.  People use both to suit their various needs and preferences.  Looking at the list of goods which can or cannot be sold, Boots and Sainsbury’s already sell practically all of these anyway.  Regarding the five-year cut-off point for the key users, doesn’t believe this will be a problem – people like shopping in TK Maxx, and Jones has been in Cheltenham for many years and is used by lots of families for school shoes etc. 

 

Cannot see any reason to refuse this application, having read the reports thoroughly. Was worried about the five-year legal agreement, but the stake-holders have agreed to it.  Concerns for the town centre will prove to be a lot of worry about nothing.  We all know the issues facing retail outlets of all types these days, but the town will always be busy on Fridays and Saturdays, with people shopping and stopping for coffee or lunch. 

 

Supports the officer recommendation on this.  Would just question, in view of Swindon Village concerns about boy racers, whether GCC will put up barriers to prevent this happening?

 

MS:  it’s true that there are two sides to this debate, but very much supports JF’s views.  We have a fully sustainable town centre, almost full at the moment, and can be sure that John Lewis wouldn’t be coming if it thought the town was not viable – would be very surprised if it made its decision without thorough research.  Regarding the question of keeping a competitive advantage for the town centre, would say that we need to keep business rates down in Cheltenham as well as out of town.  We need competition to give customers the best deal; the people of Cheltenham deserve to have choice.  We have to protect the town centre - retailers will want to come here, despite the slow uptake at North Place.  In view of the economic development plan, is disappointed that no high-value jobs are proposed for the Tewkesbury Road site – it would be well suited for business/industrial use – but we cannot force that.  Will support the officers.

 

KS:  is quite enthusiastic about this application, and thinks differently from PB.  If we protect the town centre so much that retailers there become complacent, we will ultimately kill it off.  Competition is needed to keep retailers on their toes, and it is good to offer choice.  The out-of-town vs. town centre model of 20 years ago is outdated, with the rise of internet shopping.  Kingsditch Lane is already much like a mini-town centre, but the real town centre continues to thrive.  In addition, we are planning to build thousands of new homes in Cheltenham, and the town centre can only cope with so much.  We have to expand.  The town centre is already competing with Kingsditch, the internet, Bristol.  Is thoroughly in favour of the officer recommendation.  Also, for years and years, residents of The Moors have existed in a kind of island, but here will be job opportunities on their doorsteps – a great bonus for them.  We cannot turn this down.

 

BF:  this is an interesting debate.  Is concerned by the highways report which states that by 2019 the traffic in this area will be above 100% capacity at peak times.  This single application isn’t going to make much difference, but there are a lot of empty industrial premises in this area, including the Bonella Switches site, which developers could well want to convert to retail, as has happened in the past.  Kingsditch Retail Park has grown over the years and is nicely laid out, but the car park is stretched at peak times; this proposal will be the same, and could result in additional pressure on the highways. 

 

Does not consider North Place to be an option for retail development at the moment – nothing is going to happen there for some time due to an ongoing argument – so remains primarily concerned about capacity on the roads.  When Smyth’s Toy Shop opened last Christmas, it caused mayhem, with real danger of a major traffic problem and putting the roads very close to tipping point.  In addition, Bristol Street Motors site is being converted to housing – this is in Tewkesbury Borough but will affect Cheltenham. As part of the JCS process, Gloucestershire Highways still hasn’t come up with a proper solution for traffic on this side of town yet.

 

Is not convinced by the new jobs argument: BMW talked about creating 200 jobs with its Grovefield Way development, but these aren’t new – 175-180 of them are existing jobs in Gloucester, Cheltenham or wherever – and for this, a massive site in the greenbelt has been lost.  It won’t create jobs for builders either – they will be working elsewhere, come to Cheltenham for this job, and then move on – this argument is a red herring. There are already gyms in the area, so adding another will mean more competition – not a bad thing – and also for the pub in Swindon Village. 

 

This is a difficult application, one that he can just about support as long as permitting it doesn’t give a green light for anything…but the problem arises from allowing BMW to build at the Benhall roundabout in the first place. 

 

SW:  is not yet 100% decided, but the points made by PB are very much along the lines of his own thinking.  This application won’t add to the existing traffic issues, but there will be others which will.  Recalls the council being slated by a bed store a few years ago – that people could buy a bed out of town but not a pillow, which was ridiculous – but drilling down into the problem makes it obvious that out-of-town shopping may be competition, but it is not fair competition.  For sites such as this, the overheads are infinitely less than those in the town centre, and parking is easy.  Looking at the list of items which can be sold here, it’s obvious the large items such as beds should be sold at out-of-town retail parks, but watches, clocks, jewellery, sunglasses? We need to have a discussion about exactly what will be classed as ‘non-bulky’ items and what CBC will allow to be sold out of town.  At the moment, is erring on the side of PB’s argument.

 

CH:  PB said he would see who supported his view before moving to refuse this application.  Supports PB; this application gives the wrong message when we are trying to promote the town centre.  It is important to have the majority of retail concentrated in the town centre to keep it vibrant.  Out of town shopping is different.  There is already a real mix of outlets on Gallagher Retail Park; this application encroaches on the definition of out-of-town shopping, and makes it a more general retail area, which it wasn’t intended to be – in competition with the town centre, affecting its value and attraction.  Will be more than happy to see this refused, in line with PB’s reasons.

 

LS:  agrees that this is a very difficult application, but agrees with KS.  It is no longer an either/or choice – town centre or out-of-town retail park.  Cheltenham has a growing population, and we have a growing local and national economy.  We can have a vibrant town centre and separate out-of-town offerings to draw customers from surrounding areas, such as north of Cheltenham, via the M5.  The town centre is in good health, and this application offers the opportunity to grow the retail sector and draw in more customers and tourists – another string to the bow of the local economy.  Will support the application.

 

HM:  is still not decided and is interested to hear what other councillors have to say, but as this is an outline application for the principle and access for the scheme, we can say to the developer what we want to see in the reserved matters application.  Regarding BF’s point about car parking, is also concerned that provision is being made for 163 spaces but we are also told the the proposal will provide employment for 120 full-time staff.  Even if only 60 of these are on site at any one time, this means 60 spaces will be taken by staff.  Members have been informed that having a gym, pub and store on one site will result in a 30% reduction in linked trips, as two or more elements will be visited at one time – but this means the car-parking spaces will be occupied for twice as long.  Has doubts about the parking provision, and would like the applicant to look again at this issue.

 

RH:  the report states that 137 spaces are required and 163 are being provided.  Car parks on the retail parks are absolutely full on Saturdays and Sundays, and with the gym and pub added, people will stay around for much longer.  The developer states that staff car parking will be separate, but where will it be?  Has significant concerns about the long-term impact of what will be a retail village.

 

MJC, in response:

-       to JF, re Swindon Village Parish Council concerns about boy racers – forgot to attach a condition about this.  The original in/out access between Rutherford Way and Tewkesbury Road would have provided the idea opportunity for anti-social behaviour, so a condition has been suggested to restrict the access into the car park at Rutherford Way;

-       regarding car-parking capacity and the impact on roads, the County Council has provided a detailed response, with all questions considered.  Michael Glaze will give more information;

-       the rest of the debate has focussed on the retail impact of the proposal.  It is clear from the report that officers have thought long and hard about this, and discussed the issue with an external consultant;

-       the potential impact on the town centre is the nub of the matter, and professional advice is that this will be very little.  The town centre will not be affected, and its vibrancy and vitality will continue if the proposed scheme is built with restrictions.  Sequentially, North Place is the next site retail developers should be looking at in Cheltenham, and it is available, but the lack of any objections from the owners of that site suggests that they do not think the scheme being considered tonight will have any impact;

-       if Members want to refuse the application, teasing out reasons for refusal will be difficult, and we will be arguing against our expert advisers.  Their advice is that the town centre won’t be overly affected and will continue to thrive.

 

MG, in response:

-       regarding car parking on site:  capacity analysis has been carried out which suggests that 163 spaces will be sufficient.  As part of this, a parking cumulation survey was done – a complicated process, assessing in-bound and out-bound cars – which resulted in a maximum Saturday capacity requirement of 137 spaces.  National guidance is that car parks should be designed to provide 85% of need; the additional 15% is provided. Highways officers are therefore happy with the proposed car parking;

-       the developers have been in conversation with their clients re parking, and retailers aren’t ever going to agree to too little parking – they are going to provide as much as they deem necessary.  In this case, the retailer is happy with the car-parking provision on site;

-       regarding the number of trips, highways officers asked the developer to look at the impact of the scheme on Tewkesbury Road-Gloucester Road, Manor Road-Tewkesbury Road, and the Kingsditch roundabout.  These are busy routes, approaching capacity in some areas.  The developer has looked at the existing site on the network and added the traffic likely to be generated by the proposed development and found that it will make no noticeable difference.  There is therefore no severe impact in highways terms;

-       regarding linked trips – where someone makes one trip for several reasons - there is a lot of highways guidance here, and the advice is that parking spaces are freed up through the day;

-       the bottom line is that shoppers cannot park on Tewkesbury Road.  The car parks will be busy at weekends but this is what people would expect at a retail park.

 

JF:  notes that there are only 12 disabled car-parking spaces which doesn’t seem a great percentage of the 163 spaces, and isn’t enough.  How is this worked out?

 

MG, in response:

-       generally a figure of 5% ‘inclusive mobility’ is used for guidance.  Highways officers could speak to the developer at the reserved matters stage if Members feel that more spaces are needed. 

 

KS:   JF hit the nail on the head in her earlier comment – people go shopping for different reasons.  Sometimes they want to enjoy the ambience of the town centre and wander about at leisure, and other times they want to visit a retail park, buy what they want, and go.  Out-of-town shopping is more diverse now, and if we want to keep people shopping in towns as they do now, a similarly diverse offer is needed there too – it is expected these days.  Visited Newport recently, where there is a Tesco store so big it stocks absolutely everything – this is the difference between planning and the real world.  It is possible to have a thriving Kingsditch Retail Park and a thriving town centre, serving different kinds of shoppers.  If Kingsditch is restricted to an obsolete model, town centre retailers will not have to compete for our Cheltenham pound. 

 

PB:  remains concerned about where staff will park.  Parking isn’t unlimited and we have already heard from local businesses that parking is a nightmare in the area.

 

MG, in response:

-       wouldn’t expect all staff to cycle or walk to work, and the parking cumulation survey has taken account of both visitors and staff, as well as deliveries.

 

RH:  this doesn’t make sense.  There is nothing on the plans about staff parking.  Does the 163 spaces provided include staff?  Does the 85% include staff?

 

MG, in response:

-       the lay-out doesn’t delineate staff/visitor parking.  The survey looks at parking requirement at half-hourly and hourly intervals.  The developer will not want to allocate 30-40 spaces specifically to be used by staff as they may not all be required on a daily basis.

 

RH:  it will make parking even worse if 30-40 of the 163 spaces are likely to be used all day by staff.

 

MG, in response:

-       the developer has looked at the optimal need, how many spaces will be needed for staff, deliveries etc.  163 spaces is more than the requirement suggested by the survey, and includes the maximum number of people likely to visit at any time as well as staff parking requirement.  Staff and shoppers are not separated, and the parking proposed is considered enough to provide for all requirements.

 

SW:  is not sure that this is a planning matter, but would just say that retail doesn’t bring money to the town – it brings money to the retailers.  The point about town centre shopping is that people are more likely to go to the theatre or for a meal, and it is this which benefits the town.  People go to out-of-town stores for supermarket shopping and large items.  Is it good financial sense for Cheltenham to encourage them out of town for other reasons?

 

AL:  we shouldn’t turn away major outlets waiting to come to the town.  Here we are waiting on one retailer – TK Maxx; if permission is given and TK Maxx withdraws, will this undermine the sequential test?  Notes that MG has said the proposal will have no severe impact in highways terms, but how is ‘no severe impact’ defined in the NPPF?

 

MJC, in response:

-       to SW, regarding the economic benefit of the proposal, business rates are the future lifeblood of the council.  This carries limited weight as a planning consideration, but cannot be ignored;

-       Officers have looked at the application both ways in writing the report.  If the application is considered with TK Maxx as anchor, the alternative sites – North Place, the Brewery – would not be suitable, but if TK Maxx is dismissed as the anchor, those sites would be suitable.  This could put us in a weak position - we need to consider impact on town centre, and advice is that the impact will be very limited, and if theapplication is refused on the sequential basis, this position would not be supported at appeal; 

-       the TK Maxx issue is a bit of a red herring – it is suggested as the anchor and has provided letters of intent – but the application has been assessed both ways, and either with or without TK Maxx, the officer recommendation would be the same.

 

MG, in response:

-       to AL, there is no definition of ‘severe impact’ in the NPPF but it is taken to mean the proposal will make no noticeable difference to volume of traffic in percentage terms.  The roads are already busy in this area, and the additional traffic won’t make it worse – so the impact won’t be severe.

 

HM:  in the main body of the report, highways officers have suggested a number of conditions to attach to permission if granted, which will be more applicable to the reserved matters application.  Would like assurance that these won’t be forgotten if the application is permitted.

 

MJC, in response:

-       the reserved matters application will provide the detail of the application, but it is a well-established tradition to attach conditions to the outline application, to make the retailers are aware of them.  Will ensure that these are attached at the reserved matters stage.

 

HM:  these are not included with other conditions in the blue update.

 

MJC, in response:

-       the conditions in the blue update relate specifically to how the scheme will operate and what goods can be sold.  All other conditions are set out in the green update.

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

11 in support

4 in objection

PERMIT