Agenda item

MJC introduced the application as above, explaining that officers are prepared to accept the flexibility of use to mimic the other uses on the surrounding industrial/retail estate.  The application is at Committee due to parish council objections and at the request of Councillor Fisher.  The recommendation is to permit

Public Speaking:

Mr Alan McCabrey, agent, in support

Is speaking for Mason Owen, the managing agents for the applicants. Rex Developments is a family-owned business, which has specialised in business parks since 1999, always maintaining a good relationship with their tenants and neighbouring landowners.  They acquired this site from RBS in 2014, following a previous outline planning application which was refused, predominantly on car parking grounds.  Rex Developments have tackled the issue, and to date have demolished the old and outdated warehouse to the rear of the gym; relocated car parking for the gym to provide 35 further spaces; renegotiated the least for Topps Tiles for a longer term, guaranteeing jobs for a long time to come; entered into a legal agreement with Simply Gym to vary the lease giving the ability to move car parking spaces under that lease; added white lines and dedicated walkways, in addition to lighting for Topps Tiles and Simply Gym.  All this work has been carried out for the tenants, and further discussions with Simply Gym are ongoing.  A legally binding agreement with Halfords will be followed by completion of the works, providing new life for a redundant site,  a number of new jobs, and making redevelopment of this site better for customers, tenants and Cheltenham as a whole.

Member debate:

BF:  has no objection to this site being developed but is concerned about the loss of the informal walkway.  If it goes, people will have to cross Swindon Road, Kingsditch Lane, Runnings Road and Wymans Lane – it is one of the busiest junctions in Cheltenham, currently with no pedestrian lights or crossings, although there are islands in the middle for some of them.  The Vibixa site on the opposite corner will be redeveloped at some point, adding to the problem.  Would like to see some additional conditions.  First, that all staff parking must be on site as there is nowhere else to go, with car parking lost on the Kingsditch Estate.  Second, that if the site is to be used as a motor dealer, all delivery of goods must be on the site; in Manor Road, car transporters can block the highways for three or four hours at a time when making deliveries.  This is a very busy junction, and is likely to get busier with the expansion of Spirax.  Is pleased to see the area becoming more vibrant, but wants to be sure people won’t suffer as a consequence.  Regarding the walkways, realises that people will cross the roads at their own risk and conditions cannot control this; has talked to Gloucestershire Highways and understands that the developer cannot be asked to make any contribution to pedestrian safety measures, but restrictions on loading and unloading will help. 

HM:  reiterates BF’s comments about the loss of the walkway and verge.  Highways say this is OK but people do what they think and not necessarily what is safest, as at St James’s Street where barriers were put up for pedestrian safety but people just dodged round them to cross the road and they have now been removed.  Supports BF, and suggests talking to Highways and the Parish Council to see if any local money can be put forward to improve pedestrian safety here. 

MC:  also agrees with BF.  If this site is likely to be used as an auto centre, it will lead to problems along Swindon Road when unloading.  Notes that the Parish Council objection refers to the loss of the longstanding pedestrian footway.  People will use desire lines through the site or on the verge.  Gloucestershire Highways solution is not adequate – something needs to be done for pedestrian safety on these busy roads.  Most of the other objections from the Parish Council would be dealt with in any future application but supports BF’s suggested conditions on this current application. 

PT:  one hundred per cent supports BF. It’s obvious to see how the pedestrian route tails off to a spike with muddy grass verge beyond; something needs to be done about it.

MJC, in response:

-       just one quick point of clarification, a car showroom on this site in the future would need planning permission in its own right; this may negate the need for a condition regarding loading and unloading of vehicles in relation to the sui generis uses being considered in the current planning application;  does BF want a loading/unloading condition attached to relate to any use of the site or is it just cars that he is concerned about?

-       regarding staff car parking on site, this would not be an enforceable condition were it to be included – anyone can park on the public highway.  Staff may struggle to find parking spaces, but yellow lines will prevent them from parking in unsafe places.  This is not therefore a reasonable condition to attach;

-       regarding the footpath, BF is entirely right but the applicant shouldn’t be punished for the fact that the footpath tails out and leads nowhere.  It is right that the highways department needs to engage with the parish to find alternate ways to solve this problem.

BF:  the speaker said the end user is likely to be Halfords Auto Centre – this will mean broken-down cars being brought in, delivery of tyres etc.  Regarding staff parking, something needs to be done to ensure staff have somewhere to park on site. HA Fox has told staff to move out of their car parks to make way for customers and as a result, staff park in residential streets in the area.  Staff should be able to park on the site.

PB:  congratulates the applicant on this scheme to tidy up an eyesore area of the town, and provide additional employment on this prime site at the same time.  Are there any planning requirements for staff car parking to be provided?

CH:  was going to ask the same question, and also what is the difference between saying that staff have to use the car park and simply having a number of spaces allocated for staff, which might allay fears.  There will be deliveries by large vehicles whoever the end user of the site may be, so can we be sure that there is enough space for them to turn round?  Is not talking about articulated lorries and car transporters, just about big lorries etc which he would not want to see backing in and out of the site.

MJC, in response:

-       regarding the last point, the applicant has providedtracking of a larger vehicle turning  in the site and the highways department is happy that this can be done;

-       in response to PB, there is no obligation for the applicant to provide staff car parking on site.  There is a bus stop just outside the site, and alternative ways of getting there, and like it or not, people can park on public highways should they wish; it would not be appropriate to attach a condition regarding staff parking, or to require a certain number of spaces to be allocated;

-       some sort of informative may be sensible, however.  This is a busy junction, and the developer should think carefully about provision for staff; this is a reasonable compromise;

-       regarding loading, a condition is not really necessary, but is achievable should Members wish to condition that lorries are all brought onto the site to load and unload.

BF:  there are conditions on the sites at Baylis on Princess Elizabeth Way and the BMW Garage because when large vehicles are delivering or collecting, the dual carriageway becomes a single carriageway and causes major traffic problems.  It takes two hours to unload a transporter, and even delivery of tyres is a long job.  There should be a condition that this is done on site.

CN:  has a lot of sympathy for BF’s concerns about this site, but greater sympathy with PB’s comments about the shortage of employment land.  This is a disused site and its development will be good for the town.  Too many limitations could cause problems for the developers, and is not convinced that regulations allow us to attach such conditions.  Will support the application; it is a good idea in principle.

GB:  one suggested condition has officer support – to ensure that deliveries are all made on site.  Will take vote on this, and then on officer recommendation to permit.

Vote on inclusion of additional condition requiring all deliveries and collections to be carried out on site

14 in support – unanimous

CARRIED

Vote on officer recommendation to permit with additional condition as above

14 in support – unanimous

PERMIT