Agenda item

EP introduced the application as above, for an L-shaped building, three and four storeys high.  It is situated in a TPO’d woodland, and there has been significant negotiation with the Trees Officer, regarding the appropriate work to trees, including a number of removals.  A woodland management plan has been submitted; 71 parking spaces will be provided.  Officers consider the scheme complies with policy and is well thought through, and the recommendation is therefore to approve.

Public Speaking:

Mr Paddy Brice, applicant, in support

Introduced himself to Members as the Managing Director, of Richmond Villages, part of BUPA.  This proposal started life about two years ago, with the landowner’s pre-app discussions with Cheltenham Borough Council.  The whole ethos of the scheme has always been landscape led, letting the woodland inform the proposals.  Input from officers, consultees, surrounding businesses and the public have been taken into account – for example, the footprint has been amended five times following discussions with officers, the planting and management plan has been improved, and the building will not be any higher than Manor by the Lake.   The woodland is known to be failing, and this proposal will preserve the best trees, enhance the wooded approach to Cheltenham from the A40, add approximately 300 new trees, as well as bird and bat boxes.  During discussions, it became clear that officers wanted a greater level of certainty, and suggested the landowner find an end user for the site.  Richmond BUPA was delighted to be selected to make a full planning application, and for the opportunity to provide a care environment which is a first for Cheltenham, covering a number of separate areas of care, including dementia care.  It will provide 111 jobs for Cheltenham people, and give certainty to the rest of the film studios site, which currently supports over 60 small businesses. The development will allow Richmond to continue its track record of regenerating the ecological and botanical value of its land interests, already established in villages at Letcombe near Oxford, Wood Norton near Evesham, and  Aston-on-Trent near Derby.  They will be extremely pleased to bring Richmond BUPA to this unique site in Cheltenham, helping people to live longer, happier and healthier lives. The work of CBC officers and the Richmond BUPA team has produced a development everyone can be proud of, and one most worthy of Members’ support. 

Member debate:

SW:  until a few days ago, thought he would have to declare and personal and prejudicial interest – was expecting to see an enormous building from his back bedroom – but was pleased on planning view to see how well the trees will screen the building from view.  However, has serious concerns about the traffic situation at Hatherley Lane and the Arle Court roundabout  Understands that the Asda development provided money for traffic calming measures, but no solutions seem to have come forward.  Where will the traffic from this proposed development go?  What amount of coming and going is there likely to be?  Also, regarding flood alleviation, there is a significant existing problem, and with all the development in this area – Asda, B&Q, BMW – this is likely to get worse, despite the advice of the so-called experts.  If more land is covered with concrete, some sort of flood alleviation measures must be needed. 

BF:  agrees with the speaker’s comments regarding the woodland, which has been neglected for a number of years, and allowed to let go – as a result, many of the trees are sick or dying.  The setting is excellent for this type of development, and although the architect has produced something which looks a bit like a Soviet Block spa, this won’t be seen from any distance, due to the lay-out and the trees.  This is a much-needed development for this type of care, and the site should be developed.  Has no problem with it.

MC:  is not going to agree with BF’s comments.  To begin with the map included with the agenda documents is about 20 years old, and does not show the roundabout – this is misleading.  Is the existing access going to be used to service the development?  SW has referred to flooding issues; parts of the site are in Zone 1 and Zone 2 and issues with flooding are well known to locals.  There are also issues with foul water and the local sewers, about which local people are concerned.  Is troubled to read the Trees Officer’s report; there are TPOs on site, and the report is critical about how the woodland has been managed, resulting in declining and dying trees.  The site has been in different ownership for over a year, who could be seen to be allowing the TPO’d trees to die in order to make is easier to get planning permission.  The matter of over- and underground utilities should be addressed and Members cannot agree to grantingplanning permission without knowing how sewage will be managed.  Agrees with the comments of the Civic Society, which considers the mass of the proposed block to be intimidating, and is concerned about the loss of trees.  Notes not comment from Highways England, which is also concerning.  Understands that every application must be considered on its own merits, but we must also be realistic about the impact on the local area.  There is nowhere else in Cheltenham undergoing this level of development – B&Q, Asda, Travelodge, KFC, BMW, 350 houses, shops, proposed offices behind the Nuffield – all feeding onto the existing road network.  S106 money was provided for Asda, but there have been no highway improvements to date.  Is the TRICS assessment robust?  Would say that TRICS is out of date and not fit for purpose.  Adding to road infrastructure  which can’t cope as it is will make matters even worse.  If the area is to be burdened with another development, the S106 money should be spent to improve the highways before planning permission is granted.  BF talked earlier about little boxes, but this is a dirty big box!  Has seen nothing to recommend supporting this scheme so far.

PB:  this is a good scheme, though would ask if there are any sanctions against landowners who allow their TPO’d trees to get into such a state of neglect.   If not, suggests CBC needs to look at how to enforce proper management of woodlands.  Will the proposed development have any impact on the housing number allocations in the JCS and Local Plan in view of the fact it will provide homes for 100 people?  Is hugely disappointed with Gloucestershire Highways, for having missed the opportunity to seek S106 money to improve the crossing.  Highways officer consider it inappropriate, but rejects their reasoning – there will be 200-250 people living here, the site is suitable and close to Asda.  There could be large numbers of people, struggling with mobility scooters etc – this is a strong enough reason to upgrade the crossing, in addition to the significant number of traffic movements.  Feels Gloucestershire Highways has let us down here, and CBC should be stronger as a council, demanding S106 contribution.  This is a much-needed scheme, the company has a proven track record and will do a good job, but it could be better.  It is possible that the developer may even put some money towards a crossing.

BF:  Shares PB’s concerns, but there is sufficient money to put the crossing in tomorrow, using other funding sources, not S106 money.

PT:  this development is proposed on TPO’d woodland,  which is supposedly protected. The person who left it in his will wanted it to remain woodland.  It has been deliberately neglected, allowed to go to rack and ruin, but there are still some nice trees there which could survive the construction.  Feels this application is going to be approved, although it should be refused; if we are going to have TPO’d woodland, it should be protected – let’s protect it!  Doesn’t care how good the applicants are, how wonderful at conserving – this is not the point.  Sir George Dowty left the woodland as an asset to the town, and it has been allowed to deteriorate.  Used to drive to the Lodge twice a day, and knows how the woodland has been neglected and gradually eroded, how many big, handsome trees have been chopped down.   If the woodland was an old property, it would receive automatic protection; do we know how old the woodland actually is?  This is a shameful case of sheer neglect, purely and simply to raise money from the land – a lot of money for a lot of share-holders. 

EP, in response:

-       regarding the traffic access issue, the highways officer has provided comprehensive comments on the proposal, including the anticipated traffic generation.  The development is not an office, and people will be coming and going at various times, not just at rush hour but dispersed throughout the day.  The impact on local roads will be distributed 24/7, leading highways officers to conclude that the maximum increase in traffic in the locality will be 1.4%.  This is the professional assessment of highways officers – that the scheme will not have a severe impact on the local highway;

-       regarding access and MC’s comments, apologies for the out-of-date map – this was not submitted by the applicant but is generated by CBC’s system.  The submitted drawings show the specific access;

-       regarding S106 moneys and comments on this from highways officers, S106 is used offset identified impact of the development, yet highways officers consider thatthe impact will be relatively minor.  They consider the proposal will result in improvements to pedestrian access including a walkway through site to bus stops on A40.  For this reason, they are not asking for any contribution for this development;

-       regarding flood alleviation, a detailed flood risk assessment and sustainable drainage strategy has been provided, and the LLFA comments in the report indicated that officers are satisfied that the site is capable of attenuating any increased flood risk.  There are ongoing discussions to pin down the location for two balancing pools, in areas least sensitive to trees;

-       regarding foul sewerage, Severn Trent has provided a comment on the application, and this issue is not dealt with through planning – it is for the developer to deal with it at the detailed design stage.  Consent will be needed to connect with the network;

-       to PB’s question about how this development may contribute to JCS housing numbers, policy officers have confirmed that it will do so, but having scrutinised the plans, conclude that the contribution will not be significant – less than 10 units.  It is, however, meeting a need for a certain kind of accommodation.

CC, in response:

-       regarding Members’ concerns about the owners of the woodland deliberately allowing the trees to decline and die, if a tree is in decline, there is little can be done to stop it – they are living organisms, coming and going, having their day.  Unless they are deliberately felled without planning permission, the council cannot enforce the planting of new trees when old ones die.  There is no woodland management plan at the moment, and so very little that can be done – nature will take its course;

-       to the question re who is responsible for the care of TPO’d trees – the owner is;

-       would be very pleased if the landowner wanted to restock the woodland without the addition of the care home,  but we are where we are – the application is to build a care home with the planting of lots of new trees – this proposal is the best we can hope for;

-       the woodland  is almost derelict, and the owner cannot be stopped from felling dead trees.  It has not been managed well:  the shrub layer is dominated by laurel which is full of arsenic and inhibits growth, prevents anything of quality from coming through;

-       has visited the site many times in the last 18 months to agree the best solution regarding the footprint of the proposal.  The proposal has to be a certain size to be viable, and the footprint proposed is the minimum it can be to achieve this;

-       there are 90 trees to fell, including 54 which are already dead.  Nine trees of quality will be removed, which is unfortunate but are required to ensure the optimum footprint;

-       300 trees will be planted – they will, of course, be small to begin with but will grow.  The smallest trees to be planted will be along the side of the A40 and provide year-round screening.  There is no public access to the woodland at the moment;

-       Bigger, more exotic trees will be planted further into the site.  In general, the majority of the trees will be evergreen, in leaf throughout the year, and providing good screening;

-       We cannot force the owner to actively manage the woodland, but if planning permission is granted, we will be able to enforce it, and if any further trees die, new ones will be planted;

-       There is a Condition requiring an arborist to be present on site , ensuring that heavy plant won’t damage the retained trees and dealing with matters on a day to day basis;

-       Is confident overall that if the proposal receives planning permission and is built, it will be of benefit in the long term.

CH:  this is an exciting and innovative scheme, even though there are some issues and some disappointments, such as the housing numbers, and Gloucestershire Highways’ failure to do work, and sit on money.  The scheme itself is fine, however.  To MC, it is a fact that the developer can’t connect to the sewage system until Severn Trent is happy that it won’t impact on them.  It is up to the developer to get the money to fund any works – this could be just a big septic tank.  Notes that the buildings are rather dark in colour, but this means they won’t see between gaps in trees and will have a more subtle presence.  Wonders if green roofs were considered, and whether photovoltaic panels would be good in a woodland scene?  As other Members have said, the woodland has been left neglected, and there is no money to spend on its upkeep.  The applicant has pointed out that the style of buildings have to have nature around them, and this is an inbuilt reason to keep the woodland as good as possible.  Also, if this proposal is not built in Cheltenham, it will go elsewhere; the scheme provides valuable care for people who need it – not a posh home, but much-needed nursing and dementia care.  It is a good proposal; it will not be seen from outside, will enhance the appearance of the woodland, and provide accommodation for people who need it.  There are disappointments, but there are more than enough reasons to permit.

PT:  would like to move to refuse.  The woodland has not been looked after, and Sir George Dowty would be turning in his grave at these plans.  Knows she will be voted down, but will at least have made an effort. 

CN:  this has been an interesting debate, and is feeling genuinely conflicted.  Recognises the need for care homes; through the JCS, and Planning and Liaison Member Working Group, is aware of a lot of studies which have identified the need for more care homes in Cheltenham, even though this is slightly surprising.  This proposal will bring jobs to the town, which is also good, and likes the idea of the woodland being reworked, conserved and improved.  But has concerns about traffic, and shares other Members’ unease about Gloucestershire Highways’ comments, especially in view of the BMW site.  The building has been described as an ‘intimidating block’.  PT is concerned about the deliberate neglect of the woodland, and the ignored TPOs – struggles with this, and feels we need to do something about it as we are developing the Cheltenham Plan.  For example, once TPOs have been established, there should be ways of encouraging the owners to look after the trees we want to protect.  There are many examples of ‘deliberate neglect’ of trees in Leckhampton, the running down of areas of landscape valued by local people, in order to use this to influence the planning process – a new development is then presented as the only way to introduce improvement to an area.  There must be better ways to manage woodland such as this.  Remains genuinely conflicted. 

SW:  is comfortable re drainage – the north-east corner of the site – Severn Trent has a large control system, and will install balancing pools on site which will be covered with trees to help absorb the water.  But the issue of traffic remains a concern. 1.4% may not sound a very large increase in traffic, but for a large proportion of the day – around 3pm, and 6.30pm - the roads are gridlocked around the B&Q roundabout and Arle Court roundabout.  It isn’t possible to access the roundabouts from some roads.  1-1.5% extra traffic represents a lot of cars; the roads are already gridlocked and will get worse.

GB:  Members are covering the same ground again.  We need to move towards a conclusion and keep to the issues.

BF:  to PT, would advise that most of the trees are Victorian, including a few specimen trees.  The woodland was established by George Dowty, and the grounds sold to outside investors long after his death, when the Dowty Group fractured. 

AL:  would ask for clarity of the visibility of the block from the road.  If this is lost through road alterations and tree removal,  it will change the impression for visitors as one of the principle gateways to the town.  Also, a couple a years ago, there was a study of the number of retirement homes in Cheltenham; these were classed in four categories.  Which category is this proposal, and is it one of those which is short on capacity?

MC:  asked a number of questions which have not yet been answered; has not yet heard anything about the overground/underground utilities, and is very disappointed that the proposal will only represent 10 dwellings off the JCS housing numbers.  As SW has said, 1.4% additional traffic in a system not able to cope as it is represents a serious problem, which will be made worse by BMW, the offices behind the Nuffield, and any future development – this needs to be taken into consideration.  The S106 money for highway improvement needs to be spent, and be incorporated in any future development.  The system will break down unless we act now and spend money on what it was intended to be spent on. On Page 66 of the report, the officer states that there are no plans for overground or underground utilities – why not?  Where will utilities come from?  This needs to be incorporated into the scheme before Members decide to give planning permission or not. 

EP, in response:

-       The comments at Page 66 are from the Trees Officer, who confirms that underground services cannot be provided without jeopardising the trees.  These are, in fact, superseded comments;

-       Regarding visibility from the A40, 300 new trees are being planted, and the overview suggests that although there  may be glimpses of the buildings between the trees, the way it is configured on site – L-shaped, with additional planting – means that it will be barely noticeable to anyone driving past;

-       Regarding the need for this type of care, the conclusion is that there is a surplus of accommodation not providing care, but there is a need for care homes providing care packages.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

10 in support

2 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT