Agenda item

CH introduced the application, on a site adjacent to the Cheltenham urban area, to the north of Kidnappers Lane in Leckhampton.  The site is a relatively flat 1.3hectares, a semi-rectangular are of former plant nursery.  This outline application seeks to build up to 45 dwellings, and sets out associated infrastructure, open space and landscaping, with new vehicular access from Kidnappers Lane.  An application for 650 dwellings on adjacent land was refused in 2014, and subsequently dismissed at appeal by the Secretary of State in May 2016.  The current application site originally formed part of the refused planning application, but was withdrawn and not considered in the appeal process.  The current application was submitted in February 2016, before the appeal decision on the 650 dwellings, but the applicant has requested that it be considered as submitted.  Some of the information submitted is out of date, having been drafted over a year ago, before the outcome of the 650 appeal decision. 

Members will have noticed on Planning View that there are a number of unauthorised activities on the site, including the storage of touring caravans and motor homes, and fly-tipping.  Enforcement action is in progress, requiring the site to be cleared in two months, from 1^st May. 

The recommendation is to refuse, linked to the principle of development, prematurity, the impact on the landscape, the isolated nature of the proposal, and the lack of an S106 agreement.     

Public Speaking:

Councillor Penny Henty, parish councillor for Leckhampton with Warden Hill, in objection

The Chairman of the Parish Council is unable to present at the meeting, so is therefore speaking both on behalf of the Parish Council and also for Ian Bickerton, CBC councillor and member of Leglag. 

The Hitchins site is part of the 13/01605/OUT application, refused in July 2014.  This part of the site was subsequently removed, before the appeal, but the grounds on which the appeal was refused apply equally to this site –damage to the landscape, and the severe cumulative traffic congestion it will cause.  Traffic is already frequently gridlocked on Church Road, and this application would make it much worse.  Granting permission would cause very rapid deterioration of the network, as this is the only traffic route round the south of Cheltenham, and the impact of the development at North Brockworth and Leckhampton Fields is as yet unknown – caution is needed to consider the cumulative impact of a further 45 dwellings.  The proposal will have an impact on the views to Leckhampton Hill, and the character and landscape of the fields.  The JCS Inspector recommended any development on fields should be to the north of the area, on the urban edge away from Leckhampton Hill.The Hitchins site is on the south side of Leckhampton fields, and is therefore unsuitable.

There have been discussionswith the applicants, residents and the parish council, at the applicants’ request, to consider whether a small development might be acceptable, but both the parish council and Leglag agree that both the location and the timing conflict with the JCS, that any such proposal is therefore inappropriate and should therefore be rejected.

GB:   asked CN whether he felt his interest in this application could be seen as prejudicial.

CN:  is a member of the Parish Council and also of Leglag, but does not consider these interests to be prejudicial.

GB:  accepts CN’s decision, but felt it right to raise the issue.  Asked Members not to engage in a lot of discussion about why the application should be refused, as the recommendation is to refuse.  

Member debate:

CN:  with reference to his previous point about conflict of interest, would just add further clarification of his thinking on this:  is also a member of the neighbourhood forum, which is part of the parish council.  There has been all sort so thinking on this site, with the group being told that a small, sympathetic development might be appropriate.  There has been a mix of opinion for and against this suggestion, and therefore has no problem in participating in the debate tonight.

Has some questions for officers.  Firstly, how does the density of this proposal compare to other similar sites?  When looking at the evidence provided by Gloucestershire Highways, they have considered the total number of an additional 377 houses on the Redrow site on Farm Lane together with this 45 – incorrectly added together – the actual total is 422, not 455.  Officers accept that the JCS has some planning weight; the Inspector is content with about 200 houses on the north fields next to Shurdington Road.  It isn’t logical or consistent that Highways don’t included these 200 dwellings in their calculations – they should be included when looking at the cumulative impact.  The 2013 application for 650 houses was refused for two reasons – effect on the landscape, and the severe cumulative impact on volume of traffic.  The 377 plus the 45 plus the 200 is close to 650, and are in the same area.  Both the JCS inspector and the Secretary of State agreed on this, and it is wrong of Highways officers to say this proposal would have no major impact.  They say it can be mitigated, but in fact, this should be added to the refusal reasons. 

CH, in response:

-       On the question of housing density, this will be 35 dwellings per hectare – comparable with the town centre, and the Midwinters development;

-       CN makes a valid point on the highways calculation – the numbers are lower than stated;

-       Regarding the figure of 200 houses and the process through the JCS, the Inspector has recommended that a small development could be acceptable to the north of the site area – but this needs to go through the Local Plan process and be assessed regarding its appropriateness.  This is at an early stage at the moment, which is whythe refusal reasons talks about prematurity.  The highways implications of this will be drilled out;

-       There is an NPPF requirement to look at each application on its own merits; we can only factor in commitments with planning permission when considering the likely impact of this application;

-       The refusal reason makes reference to the cumulative impact on the highway network.

CN:  is pleased with the officer report – it is not often we see such recommendations before Committee, with such strength of evidence – but feels these could be further enhanced with evidence from the transport assessment work being done for the JCS.  The interim JCS has some status.  Planning officers have agreed  the JCS has status and have factored that in, but Gloucestershire Highways is not on the same songsheet, and should be looking at the application in that light.  It should include the 200 houses when figuring out the cumulative impact of the traffic.  The total number of new houses from these different developments would be close to 650 – which would, as the Inspector has said, have a severe cumulative impact.

KS:  supports the recommendation, the report, and the refusal reasons.  As a matter of record, it is important that if there is any development in Leckhampton which will impact on the landscape, highways, infrastructure etc, it has to be plan-led; it cannot be piecemeal.  The proposal to the west of Farm Lane, under TBC, will be a real blot on the landscape.  Knows that in College and Charlton Park wards, senior school places are a real issue, and if development is permitted in a piecemeal way, the issue will get much worse.  This proposal is closer to Bournside than Balcarras, but that school has no room for further expansion.  There may be contributions from developers but these are no good if there’s nowhere to spend the money; this could be the case if we allow this type of development without clear understanding of the impact.  By 2020, we will be short of 6 x 30 places in Cheltenham; we have to be mindful of this when considering even small developments.  It is a huge social problem, and not fair on families already living in the area, let alone those who might move in. 

Traffic is also a massive issue.  Kidnappers Lane is a small country lane – we have to be understand how this will be dealt with too. 

A refusal is the right decision.  This must be a plan-led process to ensure that any future development works for the people who live there.

BF:  on Planning View, was amazed at the state of the site.  It is a real blot on the landscape at the moment – a rubbish dump.

CH, in response:

-       CN makes a very important point, re highways issues.  The first refusal reason refers to the fact that the site is adjacent to the emerging Local Plan site and cannot therefore be considered in isolation.  Granting planning permission in advance of the emerging Local Plan could prejudice decisions about the suitability of future development in the wider area.  Hopes that this refusal reason covers all aspects, but could refer specifically to highways aspects in that sentence, should Members wish.

CN:  would like CH to do this.

Vote on officer recommendation to refuse, with additional sentence referring to highways issues in Refusal Reason 1

12 in support

0 in objection

1 abstention

REFUSE