Agenda item

17/00337/FUL Central Cheltenham Police Station, Talbot Road

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

17/00337/FUL

Location:

Central Cheltenham Police Station, Talbot House, Lansdown Road

Proposal:

Demolition of all existing buildings on site and erection of 68no. new homes, access, landscaping and other associated works at the former Police Headquarters, Lansdown Road

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Defer

Letters of Rep:

11

Update Report:

None

 

MP introduced the application as above, on the former Police HQ site on Lansdown Road, which was allocated for housing development in the 2006 Local Plan, being noted as a significant negative feature in the central conservation area.  The application is for 68 residential units with associated parking and landscaping, comprising 43 apartments facing Lansdown Road and 25 town houses on the rear portion of the site.  A green open space is also included in the scheme.  It is at Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Harman, primarily due to concerns about highways matters.  The proposal has been the subject of extensive pre-app discussion and revision.  The recommendation is to permit, subject to S106 agreements on education, libraries and playspace.

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Guy Wakefield, Hunter Page Planning, in support

Members will have read the officer report and noted the conclusion in respect of this longstanding allocated brownfield site for 67 1-5 bedroomed houses.  Cala is a medium-sized building company, aims at high quality design, attractive sites, and good quality homes. Extensive discussions have taken place in the preparation of this application, with officers, consultees, and residents, and various changes made taking matters raised into consideration. There have only been nine  objections, mostly concerning traffic, and the Talbot Road/Lansdown Road junction.  The highways authority does not consider any extra work to the junction is needed, and has no objection, agreeing there will be a significant reduction in traffic compared with the previous use as a police HQ; the applicant’s own consultant has suggested this could be as much as 60%.  All S106 contributions will be paid; applying vacant building credit results in the scheme providing no affordable housing. Vacant building credit was intended to incentivise the delivery of brownfield sites while avoiding situations where sites are deliberately brought forward to take advantage of this rule.  This is not the case here – there has been a longstanding intention of the police and council to develop the site and provide new premise for police.  Failure to deliver the site was in part due to all the costs and contributions associated with it,  but the sale of the site is in the public interest.  The design has evolved through discussion with officers and a presentation to neighbours. Following a presentation to Committee members,  comments re bin storage and parking have been taken on board, resulting in a high quality proposal that will make a positive contribution to the conservation area.  This view is shared by residents who attended the presentation, and further indicated by the lack of objections on this matter. 

 

 

Councillor Harman

This is the most significant application to affect Park Ward and prime entrance to Cheltenham for some time, and it is therefore appropriate that the Committee looks at it carefully.  Is present to amplify concerns of residents – at Lefroy Court and elsewhere.  Talbot Road key access to site – this gives cause for concern during demolition, construction and building.  It could be very stressful for residents; many of those living in Lefroy Court at the end of the cul-de-sac are  elderly, and every effort to minimise noise and disturbance should be made.  Also, residents need to be reassured that any asbestos will be removed in the safest way.  Another concern from residents of Lefroy Court – who are mostly pedestrians – is the traffic light signal at the junction with Christ Church Road.  Hears what HW officers have said, but we are missing the opportunity to look at what can be done to improve this crossing.  Is also a county councillor - raised subject of a safety review back in February, not linked to this application, as the situation is far from ideal at the moment, with people ignoring the turning signs.  A review is needed to improve safety.  As said, this is an important decision, , an important site for housing development. There is recognition among local residents that development will take place, and it is also important that the site manager liaise regularly with residents in construction phases. 

 

Member debate:

MC:  has two main points to make.  First, the agent talked about the reason why no affordable housing is required on this site – can officers explain for other members of committee and the public who may be unaware of the issue here?  Secondly, Page 23 of the report refers to the lay-out and parking provision, with one space per apartment, plus four visitor spaces, and two for each house, and the drawings show the site clearly divided between the apartments at the front and the houses at the back.  The report states that there isn’t any minimum provision for parking, but living on a new housing estate as he does, knows that most two-bedded apartments have two cars, and in his own road of 24 houses, at least four occupiers also have work vehicles.  There is nowhere in the locale for extra vehicles, particularly with parking permits being introduced in the area.  Concludes therefore that parking provision for the apartments is insufficient.  It is brilliant that this brownfield site is being redeveloped, even if the agent says it will be an expensive process.  He claims that the developer is medium-sized, responsible and high-quality, but this proposal will cause parking problems – there are not enough spaces for the apartments.  Cannot therefore support the recommendation to permit at the moment.

 

CN:  has a number of general points and questions. Something needs to be done about this site, as it doesn’t look good; everyone knows that we need more housing in the town, so going for a residential development fits in well with the JCS and Local Plan – all to the good.  Reading through the representations and the comments of the Architects’ Panel and Historic England, notes that their main concern is overdevelopment – the scheme proposes too high density of dwellings and too many houses.  This is a cause for concern, on this main route into Cheltenham, and goes against both the NPPF and Local Policy CP7. 

 

Regarding the parking issue, we often see schemes at Planning Committee without sufficient parking for the new houses, with complaints about the shortage of parking spaces in the area.  Understands MC’s comments, but in this case it is quite pleasant to see a proposal with plenty of car parking spaces.

 

What does the draft Cheltenham Plan assume for this site regarding number of houses and affordable housing?  Was not on planning view, but is concerned.  There is not enough affordable housing in Cheltenham; the current requirement is for 40%, yet here are 68 dwellings and no affordable housing.  There have been long discussions about viability and the price the developer is paying for the site, but was under impression that the price the developer pays is irrelevant – if it is over the going rate, tough!  Is £6m more than any other commercial buyer would pay for this site?  Realises there are other factors and arguments included in the lack of affordable housing provision, but would like some more discussion about this.

 

What are the developer’s S106 contributions?  Councillor Harman mentioned that he has secured a review of safety at the junction, but GCC doesn’t always deliver.  Should there be a condition for a safety review of the junction to address residents’ concerns?

 

PT:  also has concerns about the 40% affordable housing, and hopes for some answers from officers.  Has waded through the report and is more confused than when she started.  Wonders if, at any point, the possibility of conserving or refurbishing the existing buildings was considered?  It was said that it could provide 92 units, including affordable housing.

 

PB:  this is a disappointing proposal.  There is no doubt that the current building is a blot on the landscape and what is proposed will be an improvement, but it could be so much better.  The height of the building is compared to Thorncliffe next door, and to Eagle Star (24 storeys), but most of the properties on Lansdown Road are two or three-storey villas – Thorncliffe is very much the exception to the rule.  And the scheme receives damning criticism from the Architects’ Panel and Historic England.  The agent said that residents’ concerns have been addressed, but there are no further comments from the Architects’ Panel or Historic England as to whether they support the new designs or not.  The changes are marginal, so the previous commentary must still apply.  This is the most important route into the town from the M5, and this scheme could be so much better. 

 

As PT has said, affordable housing and vacant building credit are a concern – has read the report many times and finds it difficult to understand.  This seems to be a huge missed  opportunity on design and affordable housing.  S106 contributions of £230k have been achieved for playspace, libraries and education, but more important than this is housing for people in our town to live in.  The police authority has demanded more than the site is worth and taken away the developer’s ability to provide affordable housing.  We should be demanding affordable housing on this site.  Is not comfortable with the scheme as it stands, and wonders if a decision should be deferred – it could be better.

 

SW:  mostly echoes what other Members have said, though notes on Page 25 that one quarter of the accidents on the junction involve police vehicles, suggesting that Lansdown Road will be safer without the police headquarters situated there.   Regarding the comments from the Architects’ Panel and Historic England about the design, has looked on the planning portal, and is particularly struck by the coloration – the proposed buildings look like something out of Blade Runner – dark and dismal, and not a high quality design – though realises that the actual colour may be different from the drawing.  This is a most significant gateway to the town, and the most important stretch of road along that gateway; it needs a design that will make people say “Wow!  Look at that!”.  The site is ideal for housing, but is very, very disappointed at the lack of affordable housing. If 100% affordable could be achieved, would pull back on his argument about design, as this is an area where people can walk or catch a bus to town and be there in ten minutes – making it ideal for affordable housing.

 

The design of this proposal is appalling, as the Architects’ Panel has said, and there should be some affordable housing.  The site might have come with a heavy price tag, but these properties will have a heavy price tag too – they are just the sort of places where professional people will want to live. 

 

Also, looking to the back of the site, there are no footpaths – just shared surfaces.  For the corner properties this may be acceptable, and possibly OK for the two houses to the west, but for the houses along the main road would like to see a footpath.  Residents and visitors will park on there and people will be forced to walk in the middle of the road – it happens in so many modern estates.Would like to see a proper footpath so that people don’t need to walk in the road – although realises this isn’t a reason to refuse.

 

MB:  presumably this site is classified as employment land – why has this not been an issue?  Regarding vacant building credit, what is the definition of ‘abandoned’?  A lay person’s view would be that this is what has happened here.  Notes no S106 contribution for the highways work on the junction – could this be included?

 

KH:  agrees with all that Historic England and the Architects’ Panel have said in their consultation reports, except the remarks about the building line in relation to Wilton House – in this, the officer’s counter-argument is correct.  This is a prominent site; it is right to get the best design.  Agrees with other Members that it is disappointing to get no affordable housing in the development, and considers SW’s comments re. professional people to be pertinent here.  Is pleased that the proposal isn’t for retirement apartments, and also that it isn’t just for huge expensive homes, which it could have been.  Regrets the lack of any shared garden space for the residents of the flats; Lived in Thorncliffe for six months – it has well-tended, pleasant grounds.  People living in flats need this, and it could have been achieved in the scheme.  Notes that both the officers and the Architects’ Panel commented that the terrace didn’t need to curve – considers it would be more successful if it didn’t.  Doesn’t consider any of these reasons are strong enough to outweigh the benefit of this development to the town.  If Members vote to defer, is OK with this, but will not vote against it.  Agrees with officers’ recommendation.

 

MJC, in response:

-       Has noted two main issues in Members’ comments:  affordable housing and design/layout;

-       The affordable housing perspective is a difficult one; shares Members’ frustrations.  Would love to have seen 40% provision here, in line with CBC policy – the team takes this very seriously – but there is a compelling case why the scheme is acceptable with a nil provision.  This is three-fold:

-       Viability:  the scheme was appraised to find out how much the developer has paid for the site.  How much can the developer realistically afford?   It was benchmarked against site as office development, and the right .thing to do. However, the applicant challenged this, pointing out that conversions of offices to residential don’t need planning permission – as seen at Eagle Tower  - and no affordable housing is required in these cases.  So this building could be converted to a greater number of apartments with no obligations for affordable housing.In the benchmarking exercise, the site came out marginally viable;

-       We need to consider the context.  The police aim is to raise capital receipt to fund Waterwells – to achieve improvements, efficiencies, and recoup some of the money.  It will need this sale to generate  about £6m for the police to achieve what they want, which is in the public interest;   the viability report nowhere near that figure, and a viable scheme is needed for the police to be able to proceed with their plans; 

-       Regarding vacant building credit, this is a government incentive to encourage developers to develop brownfield land.  It is based on the amount of floor space of the existing buildings, taken away from what is proposed  - any net gain triggers affordable housing.  In this case, there is  no net gain. The additional floor space is zero, so we cannot secure affordable housing.  This is Government guidance and a material consideration of significant weight; it is frustrating, but we cannot demand 40% affordable housing;

-       Permitted development, the fall-back position, viability, vacant building credit – all combine in a compelling case, and carried significant weight in considering this application;

-       Design:  Members have referred to negative comments from the Architects’ Panel, but officers have interpreted their comments differently, and do not consider them to be damning.  On certain elements of concern, the case officer has worked with the developers, and the resulting revisions have not been taken back to the panel.  Officers consider the changes quite minor, and therefore not necessary to re-consult the Architects’ Panel.  Officers felt the panel was broadly supportive of the scheme, saying it just needed some refinements; they consider they have now achieved these, and that the scheme is good;

-       Historic England’s comments are more challenging, and have been gone through point by point with the applicant, resulting in some changes – to the entrance, the landscaping, back ironwork detail. Historic England doesn’t support the proposal and considers it harmful to the conservation area, but this has to be weighed against the public benefits which are quite significant.  The current building is in a sorry state, and as such is harmful to the conservation area; the proposal will be an enhancement.  Officers don’t share Historic England’s conclusions.  It is ten years since the original concept statement for this site – it has been being considered and worked on for a long time;

-       Would draw Members’ attention to a recent appeal decision at Pate Court – a similarly sensitive site, where officers took the decision to refuse the application which they considered bland – they felt the site deserved better.  However, the appeal Inspector allowed the application, saying it was better than what was there before.  This must be seen as a test case, and a  very relevant context against which to assess the application;

-       To MC, re parking provision, there are a lot of different opinions about what is reasonable.  The NPPF says parking provision for new developments should be considered against local standards; the County Councilcompares it against average car ownership in the ward which in this case is 0.9 per dwelling – so one space per apartment is above the data census and in line with the NPPF.  Officers have taken a common sense approach – there is no minimum or maximum requirement, it is not uncommon for couples to share a car, and the provision here is in line with national practice as set out in the NPPF;

-       To CN, this site is allocated for housing in the current Cheltenham Plan, but doesn’t know off hand what draft is assumed for it in terms of housing and affordable housing;

-       Regarding S106 contributions, these are:  £107k for primary education, £78k for secondary education, £12k for libraries, £20k for playspace;

-       Regarding the highway safety review, the County Council was asked to give a view on the junction, and considered it to be doing well.   A safety review is not therefore necessary for this planning application to proceed, though the County should be encouraged to carry on with its safety review, and an informative to do this might be sensible;

-       To PB, regarding the quality of the proposal:  if Members want to defer – which officers do not consider the right thing to do – officers need to hear what Members want the applicant to do.  They have said the scheme is not as good as they would like it to be, but need to be more specific about how it could be made better;

-       To MB’s question about employment land, this is covered by the site being allocated for housing in the 2006 Local Plan; this change of use is OK, and the planning application is correct;

-       Regarding the abandonment test, this is difficult to prove.  In this case, the site is vacant but it has not been abandoned – there is a reason why it is vacant.  With vacant building credit, there is a need to be careful people aren’t abandoning sites and walking away just to to use vacant building credit.  This site is a long-held policy aspiration, supported by CBC, and therefore not a target for vacant building credit;

-       Regarding an S106 contribution for highways, none is required as the trip generation of the housing development will be less than the trip generation of the police HQ;

-       Agrees with KH’s comments about this application – there are more good things about it which outweigh the bad things.  All planning applications are a balancing act; here officers feel the balance tips towards approval.

 

GB:  KH also asked about community land, and SW about the footpaths.

 

MJC, in response:

-       Regarding the footpaths, it is a matter of personal preference.  There are many site like this, and the County has looked at the proposal from a safety aspect and considers the shared surface to be acceptable.  Some people people prefer shared surfaces;

-       To KH, nothing is proposed for garden space for the flats.  There is garden space to the rear of the houses, and the apartments have balconies – those facing Talbot Road being more interesting balconies.

 

GB:  Councillor Harman also asked about asbestos removal in his speech; Members were assured on site that all asbestos would be safely removed.  Notes several Members are still wishing to speak, and asks that only new issues are raised.

 

BF:  has a comment; officers have answered his questions.  This is a brownfield site, and under the process by which vacant building credit is worked out, as described by MJC, not many brownfield sites will generate affordable housing – which is a shame, showing that national government isn’t caring about affordable housing.  We don’t want affordable housing stuck on the edge of town, involving people in expensive transport costs.  Ordinary people are being driven out; we need affordable housing for people to keep society going.  In Cheltenham, has noticed two houses valued at £3.5m, but affordable housing is a real problem – not just for people on low income, but also for middle income, professional people. 

 

CN:  in an attempt to nail the red herring, has a specific question about the £6m price tag for this site – is this a normal commercial price?  Vacant building credit stumps the whole issue.  The report raises the question of the price of the land, with the suggestion that the reason why there is no affordable housing is because of the high price the developer has paid.

 

PT:  has been told that the triangle on Talbot Road will be green, with paved surfaces elsewhere.  Which will it be?  There is no space to the front of the flats.  Why are we accepting less than the best on this site?  These buildings will be there for many years, as an illustration of what we thought was good for the people of Cheltenham.  We should demand the absolute best we can possibly get – which we have not got in this scheme being considered tonight. 

 

GB:  no-one has specified why the design is not good.

 

PB:  design is hugely subjective, and in a different situation this might be acceptable.  MJC has given a very full response.  Accepts that regarding affordable housing, we can’t do much about the legislation, but there is not even 1% affordable provision – no attempt at all in this very significant scheme.  Regarding the design, the report states that apartment blocks are spaced to replicate the spaces between villas on Lansdown Road, and the height and some aspects of the design also reflect Lansdown Road - doesn’t not want to refuse this application but the architect could do better, as said by the Architects’ Panel and Historic England.  We want something to be proud of in ten years’ time, and the opportunity is there to achieve this.  Have Historic England and the Architects’ Panel seen the final proposal?

 

AL:  on balance, is in favour of the development but has concerns about the design, which could be improved by reducing the mass of the façade to Lansdown Road.  Decreasing the height and pushing the buildings back would achieve this.

 

MJC, in response:

-       The price of £6m is the net receipt the police wanted to gain from the development, and it is not for MJC to comment on this.  This is an enabling development, like Pittville School,  where part of the playing pitch has been developed to finance the new sports hall. The exercise to find residual land value normally involves the amount of money a developer will realistically pay for the piece of land, taking into account S106 contributions, development profit, building costs etc. Taking all this into account, the residual value is nowhere near £6m;

-       Vacant building credit trumps all other considerations, but makes a lot of work and is not taken lightly.   The district valuer came to talk to Members about it a few years ago.  A refresher session could be added to the training list;

-       To PT, regarding the space in the middle, the plans show this as a landscaped space, and there will be a landscape condition to ensure that this is delivered;  all drawings are illustrative, but this will be a landscaped green space if approved;

-       PB’s comments are helpful about what Members would like to see as an improvement of the scheme;

-       Officers have spent a lot of time working with the developer, regarding the heights, landscaping etc, to achieve what they consider an acceptable scheme, on balance.  Is not sure, therefore, what a deferral would achieve.  Officers have pushed the developers hard on the scheme, to the point where they have been quite frustrated.  Suggests that Members should determine what is before them, as officers are unlikely to get any major concessions from the developers.  The recommendation is based on the proposal being an enhancement to the conservation area compared with what is there now.

 

CN:  regarding the £6m for the site, the police have already had this capital receipt and spent it on other things.  Has there been any contractual arrangement with the developer which may or may not have an impact on the capital receipt to the police?

 

MJC, in response:

-       Is not privy to the contract between the police and the developer – this is not a planning consideration.  It is only relevant regarding the work at Waterwells, which is in the public interest – we shouldn’t get bogged down with anything else.

 

GB:  we have had over an hour’s worth of helpful discussion, and advice from MJC.  Does PB want to propose deferral?

 

PB:  yes, because there is a history of deferrals resulting in better schemes in 5-6 weeks’ time.  The applicants will have heard Members’ comments regarding the front three blocks.  Hopefully the final scheme will be more worthy of the setting, and have the approval of Historic England and the Architects’ Panel.

 

Vote on PB’s move to defer

7 in support

6 in objection

1 abstention

DEFER

 

 

Supporting documents: