Agenda item

17/00936/FUL Cotswold BMW, Tewkesbury Road

Minutes:

 

 

Application Number:

17/00936/FUL

Location:

Cotswold BMW, Tewkesbury Road, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Full planning application for erection of 2,856 sq.m food store (Use Class A1) and 223 sq.m of coffee shop retail and drive-thru (Use Class A1/A3) with associated landscaping, parking and infrastructure

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

8

Update Report:

None

 

EP introduced the application as above, for a foodstore and coffee shop, with access from the existing vehicular access on Tewkesbury Road and from Rutherford Way to the rear.  There is an extant outline permission for shops, a pub and a gym, which is a realistic fall-back.  Officers have considered the visual and retail impact, and Highways officers do not consider the increase in traffic will be significant.  The recommendation is to approve, with conditions. It is at Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Clucas and the parish council, due to concerns about traffic generation and the impact on neighbours.

 

Public Speaking:

 

Mr Guy Wakefield, of Hunter Page Planning, in support

Thanked officers for all their work on this application, and the recommendation to permit, with robust conditions. Planning permission was granted on this site in 2016; a detailed Road Traffic Assessment has been prepared, to assess the impact on the retain centres, which concludes that the impact will be minimal, and the traffic generated by the retail food outlet and coffee shop less significant than the extant permission.  Regarding hours of opening and lighting, there have been no objections from Highways or from environmental health officers.  The scheme has been amended as a result of officer comments, to enhance the visual amenity, landscaping and trees.  Support for iportal –the Lidl website received 374 votes, 77% in support of a new store at this site, and over 900 people have signed a petition in its favour.  The application brings with it a number of benefits for the town, including economic investment, the creation of 60 permanent jobs in addition to construction jobs, the redevelopment of an important site on the gateway to the town, and well-designed landscaping.  All this must tip the balance in favour of the proposal, and with conditions in place to protect neighbours’ amenity and highways issues well covered, hopes that Members will support the officer recommendation to permit.

 

Councillor Clucas

There are a number of reasons to request this application be considered by Planning Committee:  firstly the 24-hour customer access to some of the facilities; secondly the effect of the lighting on residents of Glynbridge Gardens; and thirdly, the effect of this additional development on air quality in the area.  The agent has said the conditions are robust, but they could be more robust.  If there is going to be 24-hour access to the site, given the problems in the area with boy racers and anti-social behaviour, this will provide a good opportunity for this to continue.  The conditions can be further enhanced to include a mechanism by which the public cannot gather, race, or do hand-brake turns etc.  If the store is not open 24 hours, this should be possible.  The developer has agreed that the store won’t be open 24 hours, but may try to achieve this in the future.  This needs to be tackled now. 

 

Lighting will impinge on the residents of Glynbridge Gardens unless they are installed and operated properly and with care.  Would ask that this be done during the process of development, knowing the extent of what the lighting will be, where it will go up, when it will be on, and taking any opportunity to screen the neighbours and build this in to the development.

 

Regarding air quality, there is nothing from environmental health officers in the report which is disappointing.  There are plans for 4000 houses in the area, as well as an extension of Gallagher Retail Park.  Air quality is already a problem in the Kingsditch area, pervading the whole area – hence the disappointment that there is no comment on this in the report.  Hopes future applications will ensure that mitigation measures are put in place, not only for the people living close by who suffer from the emissions and debris, but also for people further away from the immediate area.

 

 

Member debate:

CN:  something definitely needs to be done about this site, and the ideas talked about are reasonable.  Agrees with FC especially regarding the air quality.  This is a rising concern at all levels and how we address is is a sixty-four thousand dollar question.   His main question is to do with the sequential test and consideration of wider retail matters, in particular at North Place – that saga goes on, with no solution.  As referred to in the react report from DPDS, at para 32.5 andpara 4.33, development of another food store on Tewkesbury Road could make it less attractive to have a food store at North Place.  Are we complicating the future of North  Place if we allow this proposal to go ahead? 

 

MC:  there are two access points to the south of the site.  Is the Rutherford Way access for the public or just for loading.  Rutherford Way is used by local workers, parking cars and bikes willy-nilly – something needs to be done about this.  Regarding traffic, there are no Highways objections, which raises a smile as the site is so close to the busiest roundabout in Cheltenham – sometimes has to queue half way up Princess Elizabeth Way at busy times – and the majority of traffic from this development will go via that roundabout.  Cannot therefore set a lot of store by Highways comments. This proposal will have an additional impact on Tewkesbury Road, and we need to make a stand.  S106 money is acquired for highways development and nothing gets done for years.  Why do we need drive-thru coffee shops?  It is ridiculous.  Why are we encouraging it? This site needs to be developed in a sympathetic way.  FC’s comments are all valid - shares her concerns – and is disappointed that County Highways isn’t doing its job properly.

 

BF:  agrees with both FC and MC.  The highways problem has not been addressed by County Highways.  They have been involved in dialogue but submitted their reports late in the decision-making process.  They may not consider this proposal significant, but 6,000 houses are to be built in this area in the next few years.  Part of the mitigation for this should be dedicated bus lanes on Tewkesbury Road, as traffic waiting to get the new store will have to queue along the main road. There are other food stores on Tewkesbury Road but the access is not off the main road.  The JCS highlights the need for dedicated bus lanes, but County Highways aren’t engaging with Stagecoach and are foolish to ignore this issue.  Has no objection to a Lidl store here, but the access should be off Rutherford Way.  BMW used this, and the number of movements from BMW was a lot less than it will be from a supermarket, where the average stay will be 35-40 minutes – a constant flow of cars. Is amazed County Highways officers haven’t spoken with the developer.   This application should be refused or deferred until County Highways has the JCS Traffic Plan for Tewkesbury Road in an acceptable position. The JCS is in the final stages now, but this could scupper it if there is no clear passage on Tewkesbury Road, giving a legitimate reason to throw out Elms Park application and lose the essential housing it will bring.     County Highways officers disregard the JCS because it is not current and therefore carries little weight, but this is nonsense. Further development is planned for  Marks and Spencer and at Gallagher Retail Park, and we have to get this right; Tewkesbury Road should not be the way in.  It would also solve part of the light pollution problem, with car headlights directed into an industrial area rather than people’s homes.  The application should be deferred or refused.  Gloucestershire Highways consultation response has been appalling on this application.

 

PB:  supports the concept of this scheme and the uses, and isn’t concerned about the effect on North Place, which could do a lot better than a supermarket.  This proposal will have a much less detrimental  effect on the town centre, and other aspects of the scheme, such as job creation etc, are all good.  Is appalled by the design, however.  The Architects’ Panel describe it as a monolithic warehouse, and it is situated on a main road into Cheltenham, which welcomes people to the town. The only thing the developers have done to improve this is include some pathetic landscaping; the scheme needs substantial landscaping, screening it and the car park from traffic on Tewkesbury Road.  The developments further down Tewkesbury Road – Aston Martin, Bentley, Sainsbury’s – all benefit from trees between the site and road; this scheme is poorly thought out and should be strengthened.  Agrees with BF regarding the traffic.  Realises the building cannot be redesigned, but its impact can be reduced.

 

AH:  notes the Starbucks drive-thru flow plan, with the entrance at the bottom and the exit in the middle.  Is that right?

 

EP, in response:

-       Drive-thru customers will enter the site on the north side, drive past the building, collect their drink, go back past the building on the left, then turn left into the drive-thru lane;

-       To CN, regarding the sequential test, a detailed report has been done, as required by the NPPF for retail need in the town centre, and North Place needs to be considered in that process.  The applicants have had difficulty finding out about the developer’s intentions for the siteand therefore cannot pass the sequential test.  However, the current proposal is still preferable to what has been permitted in any event.  The officer report has touched on the fact that a new food store on Tewkesbury Road might influence the future for North Place but does not consider it sufficient reason to refuse;

-       Regarding highways issues, officers provided a very detailed response which is appended to the report in full.  We have to remember the extant permission for the site for retail, pub and gym use, which has to be used as the viable fall-back position.  This proposal will cause a slight increase in movements, but the highways officer states that this will be less that 1%.  It would therefore be unreasonable to refuse on highways grounds with the extant permission as fall-back;

-       To BF, regarding the Rutherford Way access,  the proposal is that while the shop is open, this access will be available to shoppers and delivery vehicles.  Lidl vehicles will only be able to use that access; customers can use it as well if they want;

-       Regarding the wider highways implications, with Elms Park to be developed in due course, highways officers have looked at this.  They have said in the transport assessment for Elms Park that a dedicated bus lane will be introduced on Tewkesbury Road, and there would be points where cars can cross it.  We are in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater here, if all the traffic problems of the area are thrown at this application.  It would be unreasonable to refuse on potential concerns about other schemes in the area which have no consent at this stage;

-       To PB, regarding landscaping, following various discussions with the developer, the highways verge will be re-installed, offering nice quality space.  There could be more landscaping, but what is proposed at present is more than is currently there and more than on indicative plans – officers consider it to be enough;

-       Regarding the building design, the applicants submitted a pre-app, which was discussed with officers, resulting in the full application’s lay-out of car park and design of buildings.  It could be improved, but we have to bear in mind the context.  It is a big building, but not disproportionate.  There are numerous buildings of similar scale in the area.  Understands Members’ reservations, but these are not enough to warrant refusal of the application;

-       There is no suggestion of 24-hour trading; deliveries to Lidl through the Rutherford Way access is the only reference to 24-hour use of the site.  There is a condition to limit access to the site outside customer hours, and fencing to prevent anti-social behaviour and rat-running at night;

-       Regarding lighting, there is a condition requiring a lighting scheme to be submitted, taking into account the distance from the neighbours.

 

PB:  is the extant permission a detailed scheme or just an outline?  Did the approved scheme have car park frontage on to Tewkesbury Road.  Buildings facing the road are OK, but we are now looking at tarmac and cars.  We should demand a much stronger landscaping scheme for the frontage. 

 

BF:  the extant permission allows access to Rutherford Way for customers but this doesn’t; it only refers to goods deliveries from Rutherford Way – highways officers have not got their facts right.  A 1% increase is wrong – this is a supermarket, and the amount of car movements will be far higher than a pub, a gym or a retail unit such as TKMaxx.  Food shopping means a short stay.  Highways officers must look at the implications of queueing in the bus lane, and should look at the proposal in the context of the JCS.  What they say is wrong; the application should be refused on TP1.

 

CN:  if the application is permitted, can we have a condition to address the landscaping issues to improve on what is proposed, especially on Tewkesbury Road?

 

PT:  can we also condition access from Rutherford Way in the same way?

 

EP, in response:

-       We cannot do that, as it isn’t what the application is for; it would be unreasonable as there is already permission to access the site from Tewkesbury Road;

-       The existing consent is an outline, but indicative plans were included which showed buildings further back in the site than the proposed supermarket and more car parking in front than is proposed here.  This lay-out is an improvement, and officers consider it to be acceptable.

 

PB:  an outline is an outline; when we come to the detail, surely we can address the situation?

 

EP, in response:

-       It’s true to lay-out isn’t fixed, but officers have no particular concerns about what is indicated at the outline stage.  It is all about context.  Gallagher Retail Park is next door, where it is not unusual to have car-parking in front of buildings; officers consider this to be acceptable;

-       Regarding a detailed landscaping scheme, a condition could be included requiring this to be submitted;

-       Rutherford Way access is primarily for deliveries, but customers can use this access as well; highways officers considered this in their comments.

 

PT:  wants to understand the plan for cars coming off Tewkesbury Road and coming back onto it – this is already confusing.  This application may have taken the extant permission into account, but with traffic increases, things will change, especially when there are 6,000 more houses in the are.  It is crazy – we should be able to control what happens on our streets.

 

SW:  is with PT here.  The extant permission has cars coming in from and out to Tewkesbury Road.  There are two accesses to Rutherford Way but one is currently blocked off.  Can we ask the developers to make both of these accesses viable?  Most people shop at Lidl because they want to shop there and make a special trip, and access through controlled junction would feel safer and easier.  Can we ask them to make the other Rutherford Way access viable and usable?  People would prefer to use these, via a controlled junction. 

 

EP, in response:

-       Customers will have the option to use that exit if they wish.  It is proposed to block the access as indicated by the red dots; to do otherwise would mean redesigning the whole scheme.    As permission has already been given to use these accesses, it would be unreasonable to go back.  If customers don’t want to use these accesses, they can go through the top of the site, but if everyone goes through the top of the site, this will cause a knock-on impact elsewhere.

 

Vote on BF’s move to defer

6 in support

8 in objection

MOTION NOT CARRIED

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit, with additional landscaping condition to improve current proposal

9 in support

3 in objection

2 abstentions

PERMIT

 

Supporting documents: