Agenda item

 

Application Number:			16/01756/CONDIT
Location:	Travis Perkins Brook Road Cheltenham
Proposal:	Variation of Conditions 11 (Servicing Hours) and 13 (Trading Hours) of 16/01446/CONDIT to allow extended opening hours (revised hours proposed - see revised covering letter)
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit
Committee Decision:			Refuse
Letters of Rep:		6	Update Report:		None

 

 

EP introduced the application as above, to vary the hours of business as previously permitted, to allow deliveries between 9.00 and 17.00 on Saturdays and Sundays, and open to customers between 7.00 and 17.30 on Saturdays and 10.00 and 18.00 on Sundays.  Highways officers have provided additional information and raise no objection.  Officers consider the impact on neighbouring properties will be acceptable, and have no objection.  The application is at Committee as the request of Councillor Willingham.

 

Public Speaking

 

Mr Christopher Rainey, neighbour, in objection

Began by asking what is the benefit this development has given to the community.  It removed an eyesore on the site, as the previous factory building had fallen into disrepair and given rise to many problems including squatting and vandalism.  Travis Perkins traded for many years at Gloucester Road without extending the hours to Saturday afternoon or Sunday.  As it provides building materials to the trade, extending hours when this key client group is not at work seems foolhardy, but if hours had been extended at Gloucester Road – a broad, tree-lined road with houses almost 100 yards away, and site entrances and exits onto the main road – the impact on local residents would have been minimal.  This is not the case with the new site, with its main entrance on a small residential side road.   Brook Road residents have endured an extremely intrusive building programme – heavy excavating machinery and a ceaseless stream of large delivery vehicles – but believed this disturbance was temporary.  This has not been the case.  Noise and vibration from large articulated lorries continues, and may increase the possibility of subsidence and structural damage in the future.  Residents had expected to endure lorries and vans during the working week, but to contend with this at weekends is intolerable. It’s true that this is a highly developed area, with a retail park opposite, but its entrance is not in close proximity to houses, and Sunday hours are strictly observed.   If the application is permitted, the increase in traffic and footfall will produce a noticeable incursion into the social and community life of the street – loss of residents’ parking spaces, children unable to play in the street, the elderly needing to be constantly vigilant when leaving their homes – together with the risk to health of increased pollution and loss of amenity for all residents.  Realises that the Council has to consider commercial interests, but urges Members to take into account the social impact as well.

 

Mr Adam Cornish, agent, in support

Travis Perkins’s priority is to be a good neighbour both to residents and competitors, and there is much recent evidence of them developing, redeveloping and occupying mixed used sites with residential apartments.  Regarding highways information, the previous permission had no restrictions on opening and delivery hours, though these were restricted by two conditions.  Travis Perkins has since found the need to extend operations at the weekend.  Information submitted by highways officers demonstrates that there would be fewer vehicle trips at the weekend than during the week, with just four HGV movements on each of Saturday and Sunday – this is deemed a negligible impact.  There have been no recorded collisions at the site or adjacent junction in the past five years, and highways officers have concluded that extended opening hours will not impact on the safe operation of the highway network.  Regarding lay-out of the site,   several mitigation tactics have been used to ensure impact on neighbours and the highway is kept to a minimum.  The site access has been relocated closer to the Tewkesbury Road junction, so only one or two houses and a small section of Brook Road are affected by vehicles accessing the site.  The layout in the site has been designed to take HGVs away from residential properties to loading bays at the far end of the site, over 100m from the nearest houses.  All other vehicles travel through an internal roadway housed within the building and hidden from view where loading and general activity takes place.  Finally, the extended opening hours are required to allow Travis Perkins to provide better customer service, largely for the average person to visit the showroom element on offer, and most likely to be arriving in a family car. 

 

 

Councillor Willingham, ward councillor, in objection  

There are clear planning reasons to refuse this application, primarily to safeguard the amenity of residents in accordance with Local Policy CP4. If conditions to protect neighbours were needed when the business first relocated to Tewkesbury Road, they are still needed now; this is a cynical manipulation and abuse of the planning process – submit a more restrictive planning application, thus misleading residents; get permission with tight controls; sell the former site and start trading; then apply to extend hours regardless of residents’ needs. This is an application which puts excessive corporate profit before people.  From the representations, it is clear that the site already causes problems for neighbours - noise, parking, damage to vehicles, light pollution. Extending the hours will exacerbate that harm, and be detrimental to the community.  It is therefore reasonable and proportionate to refuse, and prevent any further extension of hours. 

 

This community has been neglected by CBC for decades, which has given rise to distrust and residents seeing no point in complaining and  ‘the Council won’t listen’.  Given to socio-economic demographic of the area, and the perception that their views don’t count, six objections from local residents is a lot – in another area, there would have been far more. 

 

The question is why vehicles were allowed to exit onto Brook Road in the first place, and two-way HGV traffic ‘encouraged’ on a residential street.  Why wasn’t access via Tewkesbury Road? The highways team failed here. 

 

Questioned whether the officer report is legally unsound with regard to its interpretation of the Human Rights Act in relation to this case: there is one representation from the parents of a child with autism, which is recognised as a disability, and a Public Sector Equality Duty should have been complete, but no autism aware assessment by a suitably qualified individual has been produced, and in this, the report has demonstrably failed. 

 

We are often left to wonder at and lament the rise of populist politicians of extreme left and right, but when people feel that moderate politicians are failing then, they will wonder why they vote for them?  What message will permission give to this community, when moderate politicians actively ignore their concerns?  This application should be refused.

 

 

Member debate

HM:  has concerns about the amenity of the neighbourhood if the hours are extended by this application.  Noted in a submission from the applicant and also in the officer report that the hours requested are already in use at a Travis Perkins site in Maldon, Essex, but having looked at Google can see that this site is not in a residential area but in an industrial estate with no houses nearby.  If Members are minded to approve this application, would like to insert two conditions:  in the noise assessment report submitted by the applicants themselves, they acknowledge the importance of reducing noise impact – this should be followed up; and secondly, Travis Perkins management must introduce procedures to reduce the noise on site from slammed doors, shouting and other unnecessary noise. 

 

PB:  has two questions.  The report referred to the neighbour suffering from autism, so can officers respond to Councillor Willingham’s comment on this?  Secondly, do Members have to consider the proposal as it is or can they propose amendments?  Is staggered that within months of opening, a multi-million pound business feels the need to drastically change its opening hours.  Has great sympathy with the local residents; although Travis Perkins is a huge improvement on what was on this site before, a different picture is now emerging.  In addition to five days of normal working hours, the company now wants to extend these to seven days.  There is no question that the residents will be adversely affected.  This site was on the market for years, and Travis Perkins must have investigated it thoroughly before investing, so why did they not request these additional hours at the outset?   To say there will only be four additional HGV deliveries at the weekend cannot be true.  This is a difficult case, as Travis Perkins is an important employer, but the council must take care of residents of the town.  Is uncomfortable with the recommendation, and will move to refuse.  The applicant can then come back with hours more in sympathy with the residents living opposite the site 24/7.

 

PM:  like PB, has a lot of experience of the issues at stake here as a result of the Sainsbury’s development on Cirencester Road.  The application refers to ‘opening hours’, but what exactly does that mean?  If the shop opens at 7.00am, a condition would be needed to make sure that the shutters don’t go up at 6.00am.  Then there is the issue of light pollution; no-one thought about the lights on all night at Sainsbury’s, shining into the bedrooms opposite.  And when deliveries are scheduled to start at 7.00am, trucks start to arrive at 6.30am, and stop outside with their engines running.  Why is it necessary for deliveries to arrive so early?  Why not 9.30am?  Is concerned that we are not learning from the experience of previous applications.  Doesn’t believe this is a new strategic direction, and the residents living in close proximity must be considered.  The junction to Tewkesbury Road is busy and dangerous – had a near miss there himself recently – and this is just not the place for this development.  The thought of articulated lorries manoeuvring their way around Moors Road is appalling.

 

MC:  also has reservations about this application.  May be over-cynical, but considers such a radical change of hours to be something of an issue here.  Regarding the positioning of the HGV entrance, has looked on the map and understands why the entrance can’t be straight onto Tewkesbury Road.  The human rights section of the report covers a subject dear to his heart – Articles 6 and 8 both apply here.   Was this taken into account in the recommendation?  If so, by whom?  The European Convention on Human Rights is there for a reason – autism is recognised as a disability, and people have the right to family life.  A big national company needs to be more sympathetic to the impact of such major changes on its neighbours.  Is minded to vote against this, unless convinced otherwise during the debate.

 

KS:   has a number of issues with this, mainly surrounding the impact on residents.  The report states that this is a mixed area, and the proposed changes will have only a marginal impact.  Considers, however, that the opposite is true:  people living here have a lot to put up with with KFC, car dealerships, Homebase, Dunelm across the road – and now Travis Perkins right next door to their homes.  Travis Perkins is clearly taking a step away from being simply a builders’ merchant; builders don’t want to go to Travis Perkins at weekends.  The company is moving more in the direction of Homebase, and to have a business such as this with access via a small residential street is not acceptable and gives rise to serious concerns.  The report is scant in its consideration of the impact.  Environmental Health officers consider the proposed new hours are OK  - even thought they objected to begin with - but the residents say it is already a nightmare.  A DIY/Homebase-type store will bring with it a lot of hustle and bustle.  Cannot understand why Travis Perkins would want to open all week and then all weekend too, particularly on Sundays.  Finds if really difficult to understand the recommendation, and will support any move to refuse the application, particularly regarding Sunday opening.  Planners and Members should aim for the right development in the right location – which this is not.  Families have the right to their private life, to enjoy their environment, letting children out on their bikes etc – this proposal will infringe those rights.  Is also worried about the resident mentioned by Councillor Willingham – have officers considered this?  It is important to have undisturbed sleep; sleep deprivation can have serious effect on people’s lives.  We should not approve this application.

 

PT:  much of what she was going to say has already been said, and is grateful to other Members for that.  Desperately wants to turn this down.  Is sad about this application; was very wary of the original proposal but residents seemed pleased that something was being done with this site which had been left derelict for 25 years.  We were assured that there would be no access from Moors Avenue, but how can this be stopped?  We weren’t told that vehicles would be going out and coming in through the same entrance.  The houses at the end of the road must be inundated with fumes from diesel vans and lorries.  Children must be at increased risk – it is absolutely ridiculous.  The site could have been built the other way round; shutters opening and closing, the bleeps from delivery trucks and their engines running, all is heard by local residents and is quite unacceptable and bad enough all week, let alone on Saturdays and Sundays.  Cannot understand how Travis Perkins can claim to be user-friendly.  It must have known it wanted retail hours from the start, yet this is not a retail site.  It is just about acceptable for occasional use, but not for people to do their shopping seven days a week.  Anyone doing DIY needs materials, and will need to use their car to pick up the materials.  Is ashamed to have voted to approve this site when it first came forward.  The Travis Perkins store in Maldon which trades during the hours proposed by this current application is very different from Cheltenham.  The report talks about the average number of hourly trips, but can’t quantify an average re. noise, fumes etc.  Sincerely hopes that this application will be rejected.

 

EP, in response:

-       There are not many specific questions to be answered here, but Members need to remember what the application is actually for.  Whether this site is appropriate for this type of business is not being considered tonight, as permission for this already exists;

-       Several Members have commented about additional noise from deliveries etc early in the morning, but the only additional morning opening hours being requested here are on Sunday – Monday to Saturday hours are already approved;

-       The point of access and the way vehicles move through the site was also agreed in the original application, which Members approved;

-       HM asked about additional condition re , but would suggest that the points she raises would be better dealt with in informatives rather than conditions, following dialogue between residents and Travis Perkins;

-       Regarding HM’s suggestion of a noise management plan, officers do not feel this to be necessary, as stated in the report, but if Members consider it essential, it could be added as a condition;

-       The other overriding issue concerns the human rights of the neighbour, which NJ will consider.

 

NJ, in response:

-       It is appropriate that officers considered the human rights issue when writing the report, but when this was weighed in the planning balance, it was not considered to carry sufficient weight to warrant a refusal;

-       Councillor Willingham has suggested than an autism aware assessment should have been carried out;  there is no clarity as to whether or not this was a requirement, but if Members are concerned, they could consider deferral as an option, to give officers the opportunity to look at this in more detail.

 

MC:  is glad NJ has spoken but this leads on to another question:  who would be culpable if the application is passed and in contravention of the Human Rights Act - Travis Perkins, the borough council, or a combination of both?

 

KS:  returning to the Sainsbury’s application on Cirencester Road, remembers being reassured by officers that deliveries would not be too early, but there were no resources for enforcement of the agreed hours.  Residents were given a promise, yet a subsequent application was made to revise the hours even further and problems are on-going.  Travis Perkins may behave in a different manner, but would imagine any driver delivering on Saturdays or Sundays would go their own way – if a lorry turns up at 7.30am on a Sunday, who will be there to enforce the hours agreed in the planning permission?  Would be more comfortable with no deliveries at all on Saturdays and Sundays.  Talking about lessons learnt, this is a key one – that delivery drivers and vehicles cannot be controlled. 

 

PB:  would like to move to refuse on Policy CP4.  Does not consider a deferral appropriate, but if that does happen and the application comes back later, it will need to address the autism issue.

 

MJC, in response:

-       If Members vote to refuse the application, officers are minded to attach an informative to that refusal that if the application is resubmitted, it should be accompanied by a report on the human rights issue, set out in black and white to ensure that everyone is aware.

 

MC:  who would police deliveries to the site?  Used to drive lorries, and his ethos was always to get all his deliveries done as early as possible – sometimes as early as 4.30-5.00am - and get home.  Who would make sure that this doesn’t happen here if the application is permitted?

 

GB:  is not sure that Members need to carry on with the debate if most of them seem to be minded to refuse the application.  The agent is present and has heard all of their concerns about the scheme as proposed. 

 

PM:  would just add that it’s the first noise of the morning that wakes you up; after that it doesn’t matter how much other noise is made.

 

PT:  would also point out that Waitrose freezer lorries sit in Gloucester Road with their engines running, while waiting to deliver to the store. No-one wants lorries parked outside houses, at any time of day but especially early in the morning.

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

0 in support

13 in objection

1 abstention

1 ineligible to vote (late arrival at meeting)

NOT CARRIED

 

Vote on PB’s move to refuse on CP4

13 in support

1 abstention

1 ineligible

MOTION CARRIED - REFUSE