Agenda item

Please note, 15/01162/FUL and 15/01163/OUT have been written as a joint report – see above.

 

 

Application Number:			15/01163/OUT
Location:	Pittville School, Albert Road
Proposal:	Outline application for the erection of up to 58 dwellings (approval sought for means of access with other matters reserved)
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit
Committee Decision:			Permit
Letters of Rep:		26	Update Report:		None

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Joe Mar, local resident, in objection

Lives in Pittville Crescent Lane, and in 2007, his and his neighbour’s gardens were flooded by the overflow from Wymans Brook.  Endorses comments of objector to previous application, and regards it as paramount that these applications do not adversely impact on those living near Wymans Brook, but fears that they will.    The heart of the problem is the culvert under Albert Road, the smallest of a sequence of culverts upstream, which creates a bad pinch point causing the brook to back and flood.  Tributaries bringing water from the new development will make matters worse, bringing more water to the final section of the brook, particularly the tributary entering the brook at the south east corner of Pittville School playing fields.  The brook takes run-off from Pittville School and Starvehall Farm, and will take the run-off from the housing development being considered tonight.  Notwithstanding the effects of any future climate change, even the same rainfall as hitherto will result in run-off rate from hard surfaces much faster; in periods of prolonged or heavy rainfall, the tributary will empty into an already overburdened Wymans Brook at a faster rate and compound the situation at the pinch point. Is not anti the development but objects to the lack of consideration for the downstream impact of this and other proposals, and seeks assurance that it will not be allowed until the LLFA endorse a holistic SuDS solution which takes account of the current state and capacity of the brook, and includes the ability to alleviate potential water back-up at the pinch point.  Respectfully requests that these concerns are covered by a condition to any proposal the Committee may grant.  

 

 

Mrs Sally Tagg, agent, in support

Speaks as planning consultant for Pittville School.  Regarding the principle of development, the proposal is situated in a highly sustainable location – a school playing field, protected unless specific circumstances exist.  In this case, the disused grass football pitch would be used for an enabling development to facilitate the provision of new indoor and outdoor sporting facilities.  The proposal includes an all-weather hockey pitch to replace the lost playing field, with the advantage of being usable all year round.  A playing pitch assessment has been undertaken to evaluate the number and quality of grass pitches in the area, revealing a surplus of reasonable pitches, but a lack of hockey facilities – so the loss of a football pitch to provide a hockey pitch and sports centre is considered acceptable. 

 

In addition, the borough has a housing supply deficit and a need for new affordable housing, and any harm arising from the loss of the playing field will be off-set by the wide-ranging benefits to the school and community.  A draft legal agreement seeks to provide triggers to ensure that the housing scheme can’t be delivered without the sports development coming forward in full.  Regarding planning balance, the playing pitch will be widely beneficial to the school and local community, and the the houses an important addition to the local supply. 

 

This is an outline application with only access for consideration, which have been revised following detailed public consultation with a legal agreement in place between Bovis and Bloor Homes and Gloucestershire County Council to ensure an access route via the former Starvehall Farm onto New Barn Lane, and pedestrian and cycle links to Cakebridge and Albert Roads.  The proposed layout, scale and design of the site and dwellings are reserved for future consideration, but this scheme provides the opportunity for Pittville School to deliver much-needed new and improved sports facilities for existing and future pupils.  Asked that Members support the school’s vision by approving the applications. 

 

 

Member debate:

MS:  cannot support this scheme, which will result in the loss of a playing field which Sport England says should be retained.  These 58 houses, in addition to the development at Starvehall Farm, will swamp the area, remove a green lung, and result in a vast change to the area.  There must be another way to fund the previous scheme for a new sports hall; it should not be at the expense of the playing field.  Pittville School will be grateful in time if it keeps the field, as it will need it in the future. It has not been used for 10 years, but this is by design, to justify selling it off for housing.  It is not right to approve this proposal, but if it is approved, Members must insist that the reserved matters scheme comes back to Planning Committee for consideration.  The Starvehall Farm development is at that stage now, and both Councillor Stennett and Councillor Payne have asked for a committee decision as they want the opportunity for residents to look at the application before it is permitted, but have been told by officers, supported by the Chair, Vice-Chair, and Councillor McKinlay, that this is not necessary.

 

 

SW:  is concerned about the issue of flooding, and isn’t sure that flood alleviation measures have been proposed for this site.  Building houses will reduce the ability of the land to absorb water.  Can this be alleviated to the level of what is already there.  Officers talk about a 100/250 year event; how much rainfall can that piece of land currently cope with.  The speaker referred not so much to how much water the land would absorb but how slowly would it reach the stream.  Is there any evidence to show that the run-off would be the same as a green field?  Regarding building here, it would be nice to keep a green field, but we need houses.  This is simply a red line application; can we be sure it will come back as a full planning application?

 

LW, in response:

-       this outline application will consider the principle of residential development and with means of access to be agreed. The reserved matters application could come back to Committee for determination.

 

SW:  so if more houses are proposed, or some appalling design, Members will have the chance to look at the scheme again?  Generally approves of the proposal, but is concerned about the flood issue, and would like assurance that it will be no worse than what it is now.

 

PB:  with regard to affordable housing, what percentage is being proposed here, and has it been reviewed by the district valuer?  If it is 40% affordable, it is clear a win-win situation – a no-brainer – good affordable housing and improved sports facilities for the school and community.  Is staggered that Sport England cannot support the proposal and seems so hung up with the loss of the playing field.  The number of people playing football at weekends has gone down; there were six leagues in Cheltenham when he was a young man, but not any longer. Cheltenham is well provided with sports fields and Sport England’s comments are nonsense and beggar belief.  Regarding the loss of a ‘green lung’, there will still be a playing field in front of the school; this proposal makes the best use of just a part of the school’s field.  Regarding the flood risk, we are not experts and have to rely on the advice of the flood agency, and assume that professional officers will come up with a flood alleviation scheme that will work.  Whole-heartedly supports the scheme, and welcomes the level of affordable housing proposed.

 

AC:  hates outline applications, but if Members can be assured that the reserved matters application will come back to Committee, can  support this one. 

 

CH:  will support the scheme, but would also like reassurance about it coming back to Committee at the reserved matters stage.  Notes the extreme concerns of residents further down the road about flooding, but understands that the scheme would not be allowed without a SuDS in place which will ensure that the flood risk is no greater than it currently is with the playing field.  As an aside, suggests that Member training about this would be very useful, to help Members understand what they need to take into account. 

 

This proposal will provide 40% affordable housing, and also S106 money which can be used to improve infrastructure.  Notes the speakers’ comments about pinch-points in the drainage system further down Albert Road – could S106 money be used to improve that?  Would like this to be explored, and suggests that we should have thought about how S106 money can be used to improve infrastructure when looking at the University application.

 

Regarding the design of the proposal, in his ward, on the Priors Estate, the environment agency has done a lot of retrofitting of green areas with soakaways and rain gardens (which would be good to look at on the Completed Schemes tour in October), attenuating the water flow off the roads and gardens, and filtering the water to improve its quality in the lake.  Inclusion of water gardens and water butts at the design stage can make a big difference.  It doesn’t mean no other attenuation is needed, but can make an important contribution and should be flagged up at an early stage.

 

BF:  it’s true, Members are not flood experts, but everyone has seen the consequences of heavy rainfall with overspill from Wymans Brook affecting Whaddon, Pittville, Swindon Village and  Tewkesbury.     The application at Oakley has been permitted, reliant on SuDS , and the stratetic allocation of 4,800 houses on Swindon Road will need to be supported by robust SuDS to protect Tewkesbury.   The consequences of Wymans Brook flows through town and has done damage to people’s property – this is very relevant here.  Flood programmes to constrain rivers don’t always work; the soil is very clay at top end and SuDS don’t work well with clay soil; attenuation tanks have finite capacity. Is worried that the flooding issue has not been properly addressed.  We need to remember July 2007 and get a grip.

 

KS:  with reference to the Trees Officer’s comment, noted on Planning View, a footpath from Albert Road within the red line of the site – how will this sit in relation to the trees?  It looks like the footpath goes through the middle of them.

 

MS:  Wymans Brook is in fact a main river and the responsibility of the Environment Agency.  We should be leaning on them to do something about the culvert under Albert Road.  Regarding highways issues, Starvehall Farm was originally for 350 houses and two care homes; this has been reduced to 300 homes, due to the impact the additional traffic would have on the mini-roundabout in the centre of Prestbury, but will these additional 58 houses at Pittville School, the number of new dwellings in the area is back up to 350.  How does the Highways Authority account for this?

 

CH:  the facts are that where the run-off starts, the soil is clay – as soon as it gets wet, it might as well be concrete.  Disagrees with BF that SuDS don’t work;  are we saying that the experts don’t know what they’re doing?  SuDS schemes are designed to work, often better than the underlying nature of the land.  In 2007, the land was saturated.  We should trust the experts to come up with schemes that work.  In addition, we should look to S106 contributions to sort out the infrastructure, and introduce additional measures such as rain gardens.  All this will help, not make things worse.

 

LW, in response:

-       officers can confirm that it will come back to Planning Committee for consideration since there has been Member request during the debate.  The previous comment related to the Scheme of Delegation;

-       regarding SuDS schemes and flooding, the previous scheme’s indicative lay-out included a balancing pond.  Rain gardens and water butts can be discussed at reserved matters stage;

-       regarding S106 money, there is no reserve fund for–further infrastructure improvements which are beyond the remit of this planning application.  The proposed scheme represents a betterment;

-       to KS, the footpath will run alongside the trees, not through them.  A feasibility study of the footpath has been carried out, and a horse chestnut and sycamore tree will need to be removed for access into the residential site, with new tree planting proposed across both sites.

 

MPan, in response:

-       to the question how will the run-off not be worse than it currently is,  the original application had an indicative plan including a balancing pond.  The proposed flood relief strategy, detailed assessment, and modelling including run-off from impermeable surfaces, make it feasible that the run-off from the site will be same as greenfield, and conditions on drainage have been recommended to ensure this;

-       it’s correct that Wymans Brook is a main river and GCC is looking at a scheme in Whaddon to alleviate the flood risk by reducing load during large events.

 

MG, in response:

-       to MS, the applicant has undertaken assessment of 58 dwellings at Pittville School in addition to those already approved at Starvehall Farm.  The result shows a 3% increase in link flows on New Barn Lane to 2021;

-       regarding the pressure on  the highway as a result of the development at Starvehall Farm, late changes meant the amount of traffic using the double roundabout in Prestbury is reduced.  This new proposal can take up capacity from the change in development at Starvehall Farm. 

 

AL:  regarding the flood risk, this seems to be putting sticking plasters on and not tackling the problem.  There are four proposed developments in this area, plus building at Oakley, all of which will put additional pressure on the river.  What is needed is a hydrological survey on the river, to see if the culvert can be increased in size.  Until that information is provided, it is difficult to make a decision on this application.

 

GB:  MPan has said that the county council is looking at Wymans Brook to see if the flow can be improved. 

 

MPan, in response:

-       the water management plan for Whaddon and the east side of Cheltenham aims to reduce the amount of water going into Wymans Brook upstream, resulting in less flood risk downstream.

 

PT: has noted that the drawings show cramped-looking houses – what is the density?  Also noticed a pond in the bottom corner of one of the drawings which now seems to have disappeared.  Was that an attenuation pond?  Members have approved other schemes with SuDS in place, including one in Charlton Kings and involving big units.  Would like to know if these schemes are working satisfactorily or whether there have been any problems with them.

 

MJC, in response:

-       would need to know which sites PT is referring to in order to respond;

-       MPan has outlined a scheme similar to that at Cox’s Meadow, where the water is collected upstream and slowly released downstream;

-       Officers have scrutinised the proposal, aware that proper drainage is a fundamental issue.  These schemes will be fit for purpose.  The developer cannot be expected to fix existing problems through the SuDS – just cannot make the situation any worse;

-       other concerns raised are strategic issues which will be covered by the Cheltenham Plan.

 

PT:  is concerned about addition of 58 houses to the area.  People living in Albert Road are already having to cope with the flood issues.  We don’t want to make these worse, and cannot undo the new development once it’s built.

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

9 in support

5 in objection

PERMIT