Agenda item

Application Number:			17/00097/FUL
Location:	Gallagher Retail Park Tewkesbury Road Cheltenham
Proposal:	Planning permission to allow the erection of temporary Class A1/A3/A5 retail pop-up units within defined areas encompassing 276 sqm of the existing Gallagher Retail Park car park
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit
Committee Decision:			Permit
Letters of Rep:		0	Update Report:		None

 

VH introduced this proposal for a temporary three-year planning permission to site up to six temporary structures – non-permanent refreshment vans – in three areas of the car park.  The number and type of van will vary and change over time – there are examples of the type of vehicle on the Committee wall – but visibility splays must be provided to the front.  The units can operate as A1, A3 or A5 outlets in line with the opening hours of the retail park.  Environmental Health, Highways and neighbours have not raised any objections;  the application is at Committee because the Parish Council has objected. The recommendation is to grant temporary planning permission for three years.

 

 

Public Speaking:

None.

 

 

Member debate:

MC:  was on site visit on Tuesday,  as it was important to look at this site in person rather than just on the plans.  Would like a few answers to some questions.  Would be more happy if this was a temporary  application for the Christmas period – it would have novelty value – but the biggest concern is the fact that they applicant wants flexibility, for any number of uses.  This will conflict with other businesses and offers on the retail park.  Would be more happy if the units were different in the three areas.  At the moment, cannot support the proposal.

 

BF:  hears what MC is saying, but his main concern is loss of parking.  Planning View took place on an ordinary Tuesday afternoon.  Gallagher Retail Park has improved greatly over the years, and is now a popular destination.  Parking for Sainsbury’s and Whole Foods sometimes spills over onto the Gallagher Retail Park side.   Parking spaces will be lost, both for the pop-up units and for the vendors’ vehicles.  Has been at Gallagher Retail Park when it is virtually impossible to find a parking space, especially around Christmas.  The parking survey which accompanied the application was done in February – this is not typical – but for most of Saturday it was over 80% full, which is high for a car park.  More and more, staff are unable to park on the site, and have no choice other than to park on residential streets nearby.

 

HM:  would reiterate BF’s comments.  Twenty spaces will be lost for the three pop-up units; on Planning View – Tuesday lunchtime – the car park was very busy, and in fact more than 20 spaces will actually be lost – these areas will have fencing and barriers around them.  Drivers won’t want to park adjacent to the barriers due to lack of sight line, so at least another five spaces will be lost. Regarding the single unit by the road, on Planning View noted that the hatched line across the plan represents a fence, but there is also vegetation between the road and fence.  According the site plan, this will be taken away.  Is this the case?  If not, what will happen there?

 

PB:  is surprised that there are no objections from retailers – a lot of them provide food and drink.  What is the resolution about toilets?

 

CM:  can officers confirm that the uses are flexible but the spaces aren’t?  If this isn’t the case, could the units be moved to different parts of the car park?

 

VH, in response:

-       regarding the demand and impact on existing uses at Gallagher Retail Park, this is not a planning issue;

-       to BF, regarding the two parking surveys, these confirmed that the Gallagher Retail Park car park was 90% full at two points on the Saturday, but across the Sainsbury and Whole Foods car parks, there were 146 spaces available at those times;

-       to HM, the fencing will be retained within the area as shown, and the agent has confirmed that the landscaping will be retained;

-       to PB, provision of toilets is not a planning consideration; it is covered by separate legislation.

 

GB:  for confirmation, when the survey states that the car park was 90% full, there were still spaces in the Gallagher Retail Park car park in addition to those in Sainsbury’s and Whole Foods’s car parks?

 

VH, in response:

-       the car park was 90% full at two peak times, but there were still 47 spaces and 45 spaces available respectively in that section of the car park.

 

SW:  VH saws the agent has confirmed that landscaping will be retained, but how will it be maintained? It is blocked off – how will any vehicle get in?  What sort of goods will be sold by the units?  Will it be just food and drink?  The principle used when the retail park first opened was that it would sell bulky items only; is concerned that if we are now allowing a full range of non-bulky items to be sold in out of tow sites, we will be losing protection for the town centre.  Can officers specify what exactly can be sold by these units?

 

HM:  shares SW’s concerns.  In relation to earlier comments, if the landscaping is going to remain, the surely the plan is wrong?  Didn’t understand the officer’s comments.

 

BF:  people who work in these units from start of business till close of business will need toilet facilities.  It may not be a planning consideration but it is a hygiene consideration.

 

AL:  is there are sustainable transport consideration for the loss of parking spaces?

 

MC:  there is a licensing element to this application – it is separate but will come before the licensing committee in due course.  Regarding the car parking issue, when the site is busy – Sainsbury’s, Whole Foods and Gallagher Retail Park – people are told there is space at the end of what is a long, thin car park.  Not everyone is guilty, but some people pull up and wait for a closer space to become available, wait for people coming back to their cars.  When the car park is busy, this will lead to congestion and with it safety issues.  This should be taken into account.

 

VH, in response:

-       after Planning View, spoke to the agent who said that ideally they would like to retain the vegetation;

-       to SW, regarding bulky goods, the site has undergone a number of changes in recent years, with increasingly varied goods on offer, sub-division of units and creation of additional units.  The character of the retail park has changes, and the restriction to bulky goods no longer applies;

-       regarding highway safety, a highways officer has looked at the application and not raised any objection; his only suggestion was to ensure visibility splays for pedestrians.

 

MJC, in response:

-       VH is correct; permission was originally granted in 1989 for the sale of bulky goods only; this has since changed, starting with Boots in 1999, then Next, and subsequently many of the units picked off with separate planning permissions.  The character of the retail park is very different; permission for the units is sought for A1, A3 and A5 use, though they will most likely be selling food and drink.  This sort of unit can be seen at retail parks around the country;

-       Regarding the parking issue and AL’s question re sustainable transport considerations, these units won’t generate additional traffic.  They will reduce the number of car parking spaces but county highways officers are relatively relaxed about this – would worry if Members push for refusal on that point;

-       VH is quite right that welfare facilities are not part of the planning process, but if Members so wish, an informative can be attached to the planning permission requiring the applicant to think about toilet arrangements; this cannot be imposed through the planning system.  It is likely that there will be some arrangement with the retailers, but this is not a planning matter. 

 

HM:  thanks to the officer for the further explanation about the landscaping and the applicant’s intention to keep it.  Would like to propose a condition to this effect if the application is approved.

 

AL:  regarding sustainable transport, the units might not generate additional journeys, but they could increase the length of stay, thus increasing the requirement for car parking spaces.  The traffic survey has recorded the car park as 90% at two points of the day – wishes this was the case at the weekends.  With 20 less spaces there will be a lot of congestion and tail-backs.  There should be some consideration for this; could more bike racks be installed, as the lifting of the bulky goods restriction means that people don’t need a car to shop at the retail park.

 

PT:  would just point out that these units will result in a loss of more than 20 spaces – more like 24-26 – and if the workers are going to need to park their own cars, it will be even more.  Is this really the right thing in the right place?

 

GB:  regarding the parking issue, officers have explained the situation – there is space to accommodate these units.  Is not sure that we can go further down that particular route. 

 

VH, in response:

-       The loss of 20 spaces refers just to the site area.

 

AL:  it may only mean the loss of 20 spaces, but what account has been taken of the extended stay for each car – the through-put will be longer.

 

VH, in response:

-       The highways officer has assessed the proposal and has no objection to it.

 

SW:  as far as parking is concerned, this is a commercial situation; if cars can’t park, the retailers may lose business. If the owner of the site is OK with the proposal and the loss of 20 spaces, it’s alright.  Remains worried about the bulky goods – we have let go of a good clause to protect town centre business.

 

MJC, in response:

-       This is a valid point, but part of the reason why the bulky goods clause has been relaxed is to do with the health of the High Street – it is performing well, which means that Gallagher Retail Park offer can be relaxed.

 

HM:  can the officer comment on her proposal to include a condition to retain the landscaping?

 

VH, in response:

-       This should be acceptable to the agent.

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit temporary (three years) planning permission with additional condition re. retaining landscaping

8 in support

4 in objection

PERMIT