Agenda item

CH introduced the application as above, explaining that it relates to a proposal between both CBC and TBC.  The original chapel building is no longer fit for purpose, and a study was carried out in 2015 to assess the options and consider how best to serve Cheltenham – it concluded that the most viable option was to build a new one.  In 2017, CBC agreed to construct a new facility on land to the east of the current site, owned by TBC, comprising two chapels and a waiting area.  This needs to be accessed by the road network, including a new egress road.  The grazing land where the buildings will go is in Tewkesbury borough – there is currently a planning application in for consideration at TBC – but it is for CBC to consider  the new egress road along the south boundary of site and the rear boundaries of residential properties, and also the need for a temporary road during the construction phase, to the west boundary of Priors Farm playing field.    The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Member debate:

MC:  was on Planning View, and it was clear to see that no solution was going to be easy here – it is difficult to find a viable solution to these issues.  Has spoken with officers and been advised that every viable option has been explored, and this one is considered to be the best.  Walked the site on Planning View; it was clear that it wouldn’t work to have funeral processions using a residential road.  In an ideal world, starting from scratch, the road would not be situated here,but we don’t have that luxury.  Is therefore mindful to support the application and get on with it.

BF:  has very little to add.  The report is excellent – crosses all the t’s and dots all the i’s.  The proposal is difficult, but has attended briefings on the crematorium as a cabinet member, and knows that this is the best solution.  It addresses the current lay-out and car-parking problems.

AL:  regarding the cross-section drawings of the carriageway, is this permanent as well as temporary?  How will the temporary carriageway sustain heavy vehicles, and how will they be cleaned up?

CHay:  doesn’t want to put obstacles in the way of the new cemetery and crematorium, and realises this is a difficult site to access, but it would be remiss not to raise the concerns of residents in Imjin Road, for the period of construction.  The road has parking on both sides, and construction traffic will find it difficult to go up and down the road.  Temporary parking restrictions will also cause difficulties. Where Imjin Road joins Priors Road, Priors Road backs up in the mornings quite considerably.  Parking there at that time is a nightmare.  There needs to be clear understanding of how that road works, how vehicles will access Imjin Road from Priors Road – construction vehicles can’t get out, traffic will back up – and all this will cause major problems.  Cannot support the application, reluctantly, until there are answers on these issues – they need managing.  The conditions need to be right before he can support.

PT:  feels the same as CH.  Is concerned that the road leading out is just a little lane and has not ever been more than this; this will cause traffic problems etc for the people in the houses, especially if their children play in the gardens – the gardens are small and the houses are close to the lane.  Has great reservations about this.  Has spoken to the planning officer, but cannot see an easy solution.  Notes there are a few houses at the bottom end of the access road  -  where will the access road cut in to the cemetery?  Regarding the new fencing, there are a few houses which will be affected by the boundary treatment – is concerned about this and hopes that people realise. 

BF:  if the cemetery and crematorium are on TBC land, the restrictions on traffic will fall on TBC.  The permanent road is in our behest, but road and transport management by the builder must be TBC’s concern. 

CHay:  just to be clear, is talking about the effect on Imjin Road – the residents of Ladysmith and Salamanca Roads will be most affected by new access road, but have not objected and can therefore be assumed to be quite happy with it.  Understands that people leaving the cemetery and crematorium are not boy racers; a limited amount of traffic will be leaving this way, and residents are not concerned about this.  It is the construction traffic and how it uses the road which is causing concerns;  it is in our remit to say this can only move between certain times.  

CH, in response:

-       CHay is right – it comes down to conditions.  Condition 6 requires a construction management plan to provide more details, to control construction traffic movement especially in Imjin Road.  There is no proposal to restrict parking.  The Highways Authority has looked at the application;

-       The conditions will set out hours of operation, wheel washing facilities, securing access points – it is quite a detailed and encompassing condition, seeking to control these issues;

-       Regarding the construction road – this will be temporary and details are not yet confirmed, but any works will be put back as was once construction is complete;

-       To BF’s comment regarding access for construction vehicles, this will be managed through CBC, as it is related to the work on the cemetery and crematorium;

-       To PT, regarding the access road and the effect on residents, the proposal will only involve a low level of traffic, for people attending services; staff who attend during the evening will use the main exit, so only small scale use of the other route is anticipated.

CHay:  when the traffic management plans come back, can local members be involved?  Has been talking with local residents a lot, and it would be helpful to run through the pinch points and understand what is being proposed.  It is disappointing that this hasn’t happened so far.   One minor point about the egress road – some residents have expressed concern, and it would be useful to know the fence and hedging height, as it affects some individual houses along there.  Some discussion of this later would be welcome, as well as involvement in any discussion about traffic management between the constructors and planners.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support

PERMIT