Agenda item

MJC introduced the application as above, for variation of works already permitted at Kohler Mira.  It is at Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Rowena Hay, due to the high level of concern from residents.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking

Councillor Rowena Hay, in objection

Recognises that Kohler Mira is a large local employer and understands the need for the site to be modernised to achieve safer site management, but challenges the need for two vehicle entrances.  Welcomes the cycle and pedestrian elements of the scheme, but is concerned that the automatic  barriers will result in congestion at peak times.  This is not a quiet road as stated in the report; the second entrance will increase movement, and result in a loss of parking spaces.  It may not represent a loss of amenity in planning terms, but will affect those living in the area, and could also cause problems for the A bus which runs every ten minutes.  Residents are also concerned about the safety risk to parents and children attending Oakwood School; the build-outs were installed to ensure safe crossing to Bredon Walk and these will now be moved.  The tactile paving and dropped kerb will remain, however, which could be a hazard for the visually impaired.   The trees officer’s suggestion for three replacements trees should be conditioned.  Also, smoking off-site and cigarette rubbish is an issue for local residents and not good for Kohler Mira’s public image.  Improving the shelter for smoking is not part of the planning consideration but is an issue to note. There is also the issue of noise and disturbance, in addition to the loss of mature trees, to be considered. 

Member debate

HM:  RH mentioned the barriers to access the site.  Will these be permanently up during shift change-over times or rise and fall for every car?

CH:  the new access is intended to separate public and private areas of the site, but the public area looks like a staff car park.  The point about the barrier is important; if it goes up and down for each vehicle, it will cause considerable congestion at shift change times.  There could be some confusion about the separate car parks when there are so many parking spaces.  If there is not adequate signage and the public don’t know where to go, they may drive into the wrong entrance further down the road.  It would be good to understand what Kohler Mira intend to happen.

MC:  as a aside – a minor detail but nonetheless annoying – P46 of the officer report refers to Gloucester County Council – this should be Gloucestershire.

BF:  on site view, Members were told that the build-out would be moved up and asked whether it would be constructed before the existing build-out is taken away.  It’s true to say that Cromwell Road is not a quiet road, and Bredon Walk is used to take children to school; this is the right and most obvious place to cross this road.  Would like to see the crossing place upgraded and light controlled, as a safety feature, to slow drivers down. 

DS:  cannot see any mention in the papers – is there any estimate if this proposal would increase the traffic numbers and if so, by how much?

MJC, in response:

-       To DS, no new floorspace is sought, suggesting no increase in the number of trips.  Kohler Mira’s desire is simply to improve circulation within the site;

-       To CH and HM, regarding the barriers, does not know whether these will rise and fall with each car at peak times, but suggests this would not be helpful for circulation of traffic and would therefore expect they will stay open during constant streams of traffic;

-       Takes CH’s point regarding traffic entering the site – this could cause queuing – but why would Kohler Mira want this to happen.  GCC has provided a detailed response and is aware of the barrier proposed, so presumably has taken this into consideration;

-       CH’s point about visitors and signposting is a valid observation;  the layout as proposed would enable someone to go along the road at the front of the site to the new visitor parking area;

-       To BF, regarding the build-out, there is a recommendation in the conditions (Condition 3) concerning the drop kerbs, but it doesn’t give a trigger.  This is reasonable – as with other sites around the town, the applicant will be reliant on the county council to do the work, and would need to settle a legally binding agreement with the County before it does the work.  If the County delays, this would not be the fault of the applicant, and it would therefore be unreasonable to say the access cannot be used until the work is done;

-       The condition as recommended is correct.  If planning permission is granted and it is not looking like the county council will do the work in a timely manner, Members can lobby the County;

-       To RH, regarding street trees, there is a condition on the blue update requiring the planting of additional trees. 

PT:  can there be condition requiring the barriers to be left up during busy times to stop congestion.  Cromwell Road is busy, fast and straight.  It’s all very well Kohler Mira making these changes to improve circulation in the site, but if these means the opposite outside the site, it will be detrimental to the area.  The barriers should be left up at shift change times. 

JP:  has some concern about the management of the new entrance which it would be helpful to have clarified.  The existing entrance has a security guard on duty.  Kohler Mira won’t allow free access so will there be security officers on the entrance and would this mitigate the congestion at busy times?

CH:  there are a few things which need to be addressed – the local residents have some concerns – and there are parts of the report which should be highlighted.  Cromwell Road is described as a quiet residential street – it is residential but not quiet; it is a busy through-road.   A number of large vehicles go to and from Kohler Mira, and Cotswold Road is almost a one-way street for these getting through.  In addition, it is a bus route, and also a route used by learner bus drivers.  Kohler Mira won’t want the security gates open all the time, allowing open access to the site.  It will be difficult at shift times and this is a real worry.  Cannot support the proposal until we know how this is to be managed.

Residents are concerned about moving the build-out.  It will be positioned in front of someone’s house, and will also mean the loss of two car parking spaces.  Traffic is currently controlled going eastwards.  If someone is wanting to go into Kohler Mira site, the build out is quite close to the entrance, causing vehicles to swing out into the road before turning in.  Why does it have to be moved?  Is concerned that, from a simplistic point of view, it just won’t work.  In addition, if the crossing point is moved up, the tactile paving will remain at the previous point opposite Bredon Walk, where there is no restriction – this could be an issue for people with visual impairment.  If it has to be moved, it should go somewhere better, not worse. 

All in all, there are a number of reasons to be concerned about this application.  The management of the site needs to be changed.  Kohler Mira is a good employer – is pleased that they are here in his ward – and wouldn’t want to discourage them in any way, but this application isn’t quite right.  Building 20 on the plans is described as a ‘product and public viewing area’ – hadn’t appreciated that Kohler Mira had a public viewing area, having always purchased spares by post.  But if this is a public viewing area, and Kohler Mira is wanting to improve the site, it may have more changes in mind, which puts a slightly different slant on things and raises another question mark.  Cannot support the proposal as it is.  Would like it to be looked at again – move the entrance towards the building, car parking east-west not north-south – this would mean a few spaces are lost but other issues would be avoided.

SW:  to PT’s comments regarding the security gates, they cannot be left open all the time – but some measure could be requested for the gates to be organised in a manner that won’t cause a backlog of traffic onto the main road.  It looks like there is a lot of drive on the Kohler Mira side of the road; maybe a few cars could be allowed to park before the barrier.  CH’s comments are concerning.

GB:  would remind Members that they are here to consider the application before them, not to amend it.

PT:  GCC should not just be talking to planning officers; the applicant needs to be communicating with the County about any roadworks that will affect its plans.  Is puzzled by MJC’s comments.

BF:  with reference to MJC’s earlier answer, wouldn’t want to suggest that Amey is slow to do roadworks, but there is a safety issue here.  The pedestrian drop kerb opposite Bredon Walk is the natural place to cross the road. If this is taken away, we have a responsibility to the people who use it.  It is a well-used route for families going to school; would like to see the chicane left in place.  The overriding consideration is the safety of pedestrians.  This won’t be business buster for Kohler Mira.  If they could look at this again, could support the application, but is not happy with it as it is.  There must be other ways to organise the changes.

HM:  regarding the barrier, the estimated number of parking spaces is the same, and no increase in traffic is anticipated.  The existing entrance has a safety barrier; the new barrier will be some distance into the site from the kerb.  The question is whether there is any congestion now.  There has been no comment from local residents about this so presumably it isn’t a problem, and so the new barrier is not likely to make it worse than now.  The only question for her, therefore, is the build-out.

MJC, in response:

-       Agrees with HM regarding the barriers – the new ones will replicate the existing situation, just be further over in the site to the east;

-       SW said there is a lot of driveway on the Kohler Mira side.  The application seeks to shift the gates back; GCC has scrutinised the scheme and Kohler Mira knows how its site works.  If Members are concerned about the barrier position, there could be a condition to set out how the barrier is used, although officers do not consider this to be necessary;

-       Regarding buildouts, it is rare we get road safety audits as part of a planning application, but if one has been provided, it is difficult to question it.  Regarding the moving of the buildouts but retention of the tactile pavement, the desire line for crossing is to Bredon Walk, which will remain a well-used crossing point, whether there are buildouts, tactile paving or whatever.  If it was not considered reasonable, GCC would not have signed it off;

-       CH referred to vehicles having to swing out before turning in to the site, and this might not be ideal, but moving the buildout makes sense, and it is difficult to challenge the findings of the audit, which results from a rigorous process;

-       accepts BF’s point about the delivery of the build out, but it is GCC’s conclusion that it is not necessary for this to be done prior to use of the new access.  If a condition is attached, GCC is in control, and conditions shouldn’t rely on a third party’s activity but be in the gift of the applicant to deliver.  The applicant would prefer to have a planning permission with a condition than a refusal, but Members shouldn’t be surprised if the applicant comes back with an application to vary the condition.  It can be done – but officers don’t advise it.

CM:  works on a site with security barriers – they work efficiently, and Kohler Mira will be able to sort out any problems quickly.   Noted on site visit that if the buildout is left as it is, cars travelling eastwards to the site will obscure crossing the road from cars turning right.  It should definitely be moved.

CH:  could be mistaken, but believes the current access to the site has a security guard but no barriers; the new access will have barriers but no security guard.    Employees will have passes to gain access.Members just want to see how the scheme can be better; they are told that they’re not here to redesign schemes, but if rejected, the minutes will show what Members would find acceptable.  These smaller points are worth making for that reason.  As an aside, the build-outs were put there when Oakwood School was established to help with additional traffic, and any roadworks should be carried out in school holiday time.   Ordinarily, Amey would do the work, but Kohler Mira can appoint another approved contractor to do the work, should they wish. 

MJC, in response:

-       to confirm, would members like (1) a condition regarding how the barriers are operated, and (2) another one about the delivery of highways works prior to the beneficial use of the works?

GB:  if Members are happy, officers can work out the wording of these conditions;  Members can vote on them individually.

Vote on condition regarding operation of the barriers at peak times

10 in support

1 in objection

1 abstentions

CARRIED

Vote on condition to require highways work prior to implementation of work on site

7 in support

3 in objection

2 abstentions

CARRIED

RH:  can there be a condition requiring the highway works during school holiday time?

MJC, in response:

-       an informative would be more appropriate for this.

Vote on officer recommendation  to permit, with two conditions

9 in support

3 in objection

PERMIT with conditions as above