Agenda item

 

Application Number:			16/02208/FUL
Location:	Land At North Road West And Grovefield Way, Cheltenham
Proposal:	Hybrid application seeking detailed planning permission for a 5,034 sq.m of commercial office space (Use Class B1), 502 sq.m day nursery (Use Class D1), 1,742 sq.m supermarket food retail unit (Class A1), a 204 sq.m coffee shop retail unit and drive-thru (Use Classes A1 and A3), with associated parking, landscaping and infrastructure works. Outline planning permission sought for the erection of 8,034 sq.m of commercial office space (Use Class B1), together with associated car parking, landscaping and infrastructure works, with all matters reserved (except access).
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:					Permit subject to a 106 Obligation
Committee Decision:				Refuse
Letters of Rep:		339		Update Report:		i.              Additional neighbour comment ii.            Letter from agent re. North Place iii.           Officer update

 

EP introduced the application as above, reminding Members that planning permission for the whole site was first granted in 2007, following an appeal.  Permission for the flagship BMW showroom was granted in 2014, and that scheme has now been implemented.  The remainder of the site is the subject of this application, and already has extant outline planning permission for up to 16,800 sq. metres of B1 employment use – the fall-back position for the applicant.  In addition, with the adoption of the JCS on Monday, the site is no longer within the green belt.  Regarding the non-B1 uses, officers consider the principle to be acceptable as together they only make up a small percentage of site, and in addition they provide jobs for Cheltenham; refusal of the application on loss of employment land would not be sustainable at appeal. A sequential test has been carried out and gives rise to some ambiguity, but the officer view is that if the test were concluded, it would be of little assistance in determining the application, and that the proposal is therefore acceptable, giving greater weight to the economic benefit of the proposal than to the uncertainty re North Place.  It will bring forward significant employment, and the design, lay-out, landscaping, flooding, drainage and ecology are all satisfactory.  There has been a considerable number of objections which officers have taken on board, but considered against all criteria, officers feel the proposal is acceptable, and the recommendation is therefore to approve subject to S106. 

 

Before the application is discussed, officers would like Members to watch a fly-through presentation which they have not yet seen. 

 

(Presentation)

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Gary Fulford, Reddings Residents Association, in objection

Reddings residents support B1 use on the site, but do not consider retail use to be appropriate or necessary.  Most of the 338 objections from residents, councillors, businesses, residents associations and the parish council relate to non-B class use.  The Green Belt was designated for employment use for 1200 B1 jobs; BMW has taken 33% of the site for non-B1 jobs; the non-B1 elements of this proposal will take another 12% of the site for 21 new full time jobs, at a cost of 132 B1 jobs on the existing permission.  This represents a loss of £588,000 per year from the local economy.  B1 use is likely to create a modal shift with local jobs for residents; the job number projections, with retail on the site, are misleading and incorrect – retail will encourage journeys from outside the area.  B1 offices are generally open five days a week, from 8.00am to 6.00pm, with predictable traffic flows, which won’t interfere with residents at home in the evenings and at weekends.  Retail is 5.30am to 11.00pm seven days a week, with 24-hour intense lighting and variable traffic flows all day, every day.  Background light will increase with headlights and security lights, as well as sunlight reflected off the white render; noise from traffic, deliveries, vehicle movements around the site, and fume pollution will also increase. The applicant’s reports are 12 months old, pre-dating the JCS and Local Plan, and are now confusing having been revised several times since submission.  The application is not transparent, and the traffic data is out of date and unreliable.   Traffic fumes from stationery traffic are common around the site since BMW opened, as is regular flooding of local houses and sewers.  Run-off water from Grovefield Way is not accounted for in the design proposals.   The community, and Cheltenham, deserves the right solution in line with the visions of the Local plan.  Urges Members to reject the application. 

 

Ms Laura Humphries, Pegasus Group on behalf of Asda, in objection

Greenbelt should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, and justification for the removal of this site from the green best was on the basis that it was required for employment.  A significant proportion of the proposal is not for employment use, which undermines the JCS and the basis for removing the site from the green belt.  The emerging Local Plan proposes to allocated the site for employment land, and policies are specific regarding the uses which will be supported and safeguarded on the site.  Retail development is not supported even though it would represent a significant proportion of the overall scheme - the suggested legal agreement doesn’t provide sufficient assurances to the delivery of employment elements. The applicant fails to demonstrated that there are no sequentially preferable sites available, and the NPPF is clear that where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test, it should be refused.  The traffic data used in the transport statements was gathered in a non-neutral month, so the data is not representative, and trip generation figures used are unacceptably underestimated for a store of this size. 

 

Mr James Griffin, Hunter Page Planning, in support

Thanks to planning officers for their work over the last 12 months, resulting in a balanced report and recommendation to permit subject to conditions and S106 agreement. It is important to remember that an outline permission already exists for 16,800 square metres of office space, granted in 2014, and that all three JCS authorities have not voted to adopt the JCS, removing this site from the green belt.   The applicants acknowledge the significant level of concern about the food retail store, day nursery and café uses of the site, but these are not significant and represent a change of just under 15% from the extant permission granted in 2014.  These proposed complementary uses are valuable to securing an implementable permission to deliver offices on the site, and also critical to attracting officer users and avoiding a sterile business park.  There has been a policy shift in recent years in terms of what constitutes employment development, and the employment land review which supported the JCS, acknowledges that on-office uses generate employment and are needed to support a growing economy.  This development will generate over 1,000 full-time equivalent jobs.  Officers acknowledge that economic growth is a national objective and significant material consideration.  The applicant has agreed to a legal agreement to construct and fit out office buildings 1 and 2 prior to occupation of the subordinate uses, above and beyond the extant permission and resulting in direct investment in the local economy.  No transport objection has been raised by the local highways authority or Highways England, and much time has been spent refining the layout and landscape to be functional ye complementary to adjacent development.  The application has been assessed independently in terms of retail impact, and there would be no harm to the town centre.  There have been no objections from statutory consultees regarding drainage, ecology or noise impact.  The applicant and agent have worked hard with officers to provide a scheme that is appropriate in all aspects. 

 

Ms Lycia Warwick, applicant, in support

Is firmly committed to the site, and intends to implement fully the development and B1 offices proposed, as reflected in the legal agreement.  Following discussions with office occupiers and national agents, recognise that it is necessary to introduce uses that support the offices to avoid a sterile office park environment environment.  This approach is now common as office users require facilities to support their staff.  There has been significant interest from national businesses keen to move to the site based on the development, realising that the scheme is now deliverable, and named users are firmly committed and intend to invest to deliver jobs for the local economy. 

 

Councillor Britter, ward councillor, in objection

Within five minutes’ walk of this site are two supermarkets, a restaurant, a café, a permanent food and drink van, a drive-through KFC, a corner shop and a newsagent.  There is also existing childcare, especially at the Reddings Community Centre, adjacent to the site, in addition to other local nurseries and child minders.  The B1 element of the development is in keeping with 2007 permission and is supported; there are  no exceptional circumstances to support A and D class development.  The developer has outline permission for B1 office development and should progress it.  With this proposal, the site would be open 5.30am – 11.00pm, seven days a week, 365 days a year, which is unacceptable.  B1 use would be mostly 8.00am-6.00pm, five days a week, leaving residents in peace at evenings and weekends.  The proposal is incompatible with a residential area, very different in nature from the extant permission. 

 

Despite requests, no impact assessment has been carried out on small business in the area, in particular the playgroup, existing child carers and nurseries, Springfield provisions, Spar, the newsagent on Hatherley Road, or Warden Hill and Benhall shops.  They and the local community centre may not be viable if the proposal is permitted. 

 

Homeowners say their properties didn’t flood before the BMW development, but localised flooding has occurred on several occasions since.  Due to the slope of Grovefield Way, the site acts as a soakaway for excess rain on the road, and capacity for this run-off water hasn’t been taken into account.  The NPPF states that new developments shouldn’t pass on flooding to neighbouring sites.  The mains drainage was meant for the small original village, and combines foul and storm water.  Even during moderate rainfall, the manholes in North Road West regularly lift, and local sewage flooding occurs.  Capacity for this development must be assessed, as any subsequent upgrade work would be at taxpayers’ expense.  Similarly, can the existing ditch drainage system support the total storm water discharge from this proposal because it will be about the same as 2 fire engine hoses at full bore.

 

Roads in the area are already congested, with HGVs, shopping traffic, nursery traffic.  A Costa drive-through will have serious implications for the Reddings and area and the implementation of the JCS traffic strategy.  Local traffic will vastly increase, seven days a week, compared to five days for B1. Many large local developments of the last four years are not included in the applicant’s 2013 traffic report.  The impact from the additional traffic created by the BMW showrooms is greater than anyone envisaged.  Grovefield Way is the  southern bypass, and traffic is slow or stationary for up to three hours in the afternoons, with heavy pollution, contrary to emerging evidence regarding pollution and health, particularly detrimental on the very young, those inside the vehicles, and residents.    With this proposal, standing traffic emerging onto Grovefield way will create even more pollution.

 

The landscape proposals need more tree screening along the whole boundary of the site to mitigate light and noise pollution as the inspector intended in 2007.  Light pollution from buildings, cars and carparks will be aggravated by the sun reflecting off the glazing and the white render. The existing KFC drive-through creates huge amounts of rubbish, which impacts on wildlife, and will increase with Costa.  No additional bins or clear-up plans are set out. 

 

There will be a further in parking in nearby roads, from customers and workers.  BMW staff already cause local tension and problems with the park and ride.  The proposal offers nothing back to the community, and the developer has gone against the clear indications of the Inspector in 2007.  This behaviour wouldn’t be tolerated from domestic owners. If local means local, as the government has suggested, then the community has spoken and their wishes and concerns should be listened to. Their wish is that it will be refused. 

 

 

Member debate:

CN:  is very conflicted by this.  Has lots of questions and is sure other Members will have too.  The officer mentioned that the site is no longer in the green belt; can this be clarified?  The three councils have now signed off the JCS, but does the Secretary of State not have to agree for the site to be legally taken out of the green belt?  The officer also said that the loss of employment land was not sufficient to sustain an appeal – but on what basis?  Examples would be helpful here.  Regarding the sequential study, is confused about the North Place issue, and the NPPF says sequential test has to be carried out.  Officers are saying that not satisfying the sequential is test not adequate reason for refusal in its own right; can officers explain the justification of this?The representative of Asda said the legal agreement doesn’t give assurances on delivery of the B1 element of the scheme – what is officers’ opinion of this?  She also said that trip estimates for traffic has been underestimated – what is officers’ opinion on how up to date estimates are.  The applicant said there is a huge amount of business interest in the site – so why is retail element included if there is so much business desire to be there?  Councillor Britter made the point that no impact assessment on local businesses has been carried out.  Is disappointed this was not done; would have thought it was essential.  In the report, the officer states that the proposal won’t adversely affect any of the policy-protected centre of Cheltenham, but what about the non-policy protected areas? The lack of protection  doesn’t mean these areas should be given no consideration, so why wasn’t an impact assessment conducted?  Are there enough parking spaces?  With the BMW scheme, it didn’t seem that enough parking was provided, and a significant number of staff have an arrangement with the Park and Ride as they are not allowed the park on the BMW site – so what are we letting ourselves in for with this current proposal?  If the retail element represents 12% of the application, does this include the car parking element?

 

MC:  can officers provide a figure: as a result of all the recent developments in area,  how much S106 money has been earmarked for highways spend and on what?  Looking at the history of the site – the applications and appeals since 2005  -   and reading in the report about the need for job creation -  there should be 1200 B1 jobs on a site of this size, but there has been a shift away from B1 use, starting with the BMW car showroom.  There should be no building greater than two storeys on the site – but the BMW showroom is four storeys high, with minis on top.  The appeal refers to this being occasionally glimpsed from the A40, but  it is a lot more than a glimpse – it looks like a docked cruise ship.  To get buy-in from commerce, we have to deliver something honest, up front and straight.  The developer has B1 permission – they should get on and build it.

 

The retail statement is rubbish, with  no reference to nearest shops or the impact of another supermarket – this is incredible.  The childcare business at the Reddings Community Centre isn’t mentioned; it provides the main income for the centre, and loss of business may jeopardise its future.  The report reads like an amendment for something already there, but it should stand on own merits. 

 

With regard to jobs on the site, BMW employs 180 staff.  Has met with the manager, and understands that BMW has paid £30k for 80 spaces in the Park and Ride for staff parking.  This is an abuse of the facility.  The robustness of job creation cannot be taken seriously, as staff have been imported from elsewhere.  A more realistic figure would be about 20 new jobs.

 

Then there is the drive-through coffee shop – why?  Cheltenham is already the Costa Coffee shop capital.  Why do we need an other? And should CBC really be encouraging hot drinks for drivers…?

 

Regarding the traffic data, has read the report and doesn’t accept a lot of what it says – it is out of date and misleading.  There is no highways officer at the meeting to explain their contentious comments.  Has Highways England really got no objections – seriously? There will be significant impact on the A40, and HW England is responsible for roundabout, which is already over capacity.  By looking at developments in isolation, traffic data doesn’t include the effect of the new care home or the impact of Pure Office Phase 2 – this traffic not taken into account, and the figures are therefore inaccurate.  Grovefield Way is often backed up a considerable distance to Cold Pool Lane – what mitigation has been put in place by S106 from other developments in area?  Notes on P70 of the report that there are no minimum parking standards for residential development, and not for commercial either.  The Highways report is patronising.  It talks about linked trips, but for shoppers, Lidl and Aldi are often additional trips.  The claims are outrageous; it even talks about  linked trips to the coffee shop…and how does a linked trip reduce pollution?  Is very much opposed to the coffee shop.

 

The geotech report is the same as that used for the BMW application; the name has just been changed.  Local population flood now, didn’t before BMW.  Denying responsibility. 

 

Notes that opening hours during construction  are limited to 8am-1pm on Saturdays, and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays.  When shop open, ill be 5.30am to 11.00pm every day – so how is that acceptable?  The report also mixes am and pm with the 24-hour clock, which is annoying. 

 

The video shown at the start of the meeting didn’t show traffic queues on Grovefield Way – but they are there, nearly all of the time.  The developers has permission for B1; they should get on with B1, and that be an end to it. 

 

PB:  it’s agood thing  that Monday’s council meeting started at 2.00pm and finished at 10.00pm – it was good stamina building for this meeting.  This is a really important item, and we need to bear with all speakers.  There have been over 300 objectors; it is a critical development, potentially life-changing, and has sparked  mass concern.  Feels that in this case the officers are wrong.  This application represents a significant change of use.  In 2007, in special circumstances, the Inspector agreed to allowed 22,000 sq metres of the site for B1 use; in 2014, permission was granted for the BMW showroom, and later that year outline permission was granted for up to 16,800 sq metres B1 use.  BMW was a special case, relocating the  existing showrooms in Cheltenham and Gloucester,  with a  net gain of 80-100 jobs.  Calculations

 

Calculations on 22,000 sq metres show we have lost 41% of original B1 allocation.  This is significant.  How can officers say there are now more jobs on site than originally envisaged?   There will be 26 at Aldi, 20 at Costa, 35 at nursery.  Suggests this as the first reason to refuse the proposal; it is not what Inspector envisaged. The dire shortage of B1 land was confirmed in 2007; the deficit has increased since then, and the JCS in 2011 still detailed a lack of B1 land of the kind that will be lost in this location if this proposal is permitted.  The NPPF economy rule is to ensure there is sufficient land of the right type in the  right place at the right time to support growth.  In taking this away, we would be in breach of NPPF.

 

As a rule, planning proposals should reflect community needs; in no way does this reflect the needs of this community.  It already has supermarkets, offices, and nurseries struggling to fill their places.  The proposal will put more pressure on existing businesses.  The Localism Act is supposed to empower local communities but what did this developer do to involve the community before submitting these plans?  Paragraph 14 of the NPPF talks about positive site opportunities to meet development needs of area – this is in no way needed.

 

The retail report is skimpy, and didn’t even mention the smaller retail areas a short distance from the site.  Morrisons and Asda may be able to cope, but small stores will suffer, with pricing etc. Local policies RT6 and RT7 require the need for additional floor space to be demonstrated.  It is not proven here.  Coronation Square is on its last legs and is a critical area for town.  This proposal will undoubtedly have a detrimental effect. Local policy EM2 is concerned with retail land and the loss of existing floor space.  There is no gain here.  The quality of retail jobs is nothing like the quality of jobs in B1 employment use.  No consideration has been given to the range and type of sites for business use in area, to the impact of the site on business in the area, or whether the uses are appropriate to the location.  Does the proposal add value to the area?  No.

 

Regarding flooding, the Local Plan states that major developments should the reduce the risk– not just prevent it from getting worse.  This field will be covered in concrete; if the application is permitted, it will need a much stronger flood condition.

 

Notes that the Architects Panel looked at the proposal twice.  They didn’t support it the first time, saying the design was uninspiring. They stated that the second version is a better scheme, but it isn’t clear whether or not they supported it.  The Civic Society was very critical, questioning the need for another supermarket, and the poor design at this major gateway to the town.  Considers the BMW to be brilliant and worthy of its position here, but will move to refuse this proposal on EM2, RT6, RT7, the existing local plan, the emerging local plan, the newly adopted JCS adopted, and the NPPF.

 

SW:  MC and PB have covered in detail a lot of what he wants to say.  Councillor Britter and Mr Fulford came forward with a mass of information, shoehorned into a small space of time, which have meant they spoke quickly and without much emotion – although local people are very concerned and upset by this proposal.   Looking back at the history of the site, it was originally earmarked for Park and Ride.  The Council  rejected that, as the area for expanding the Park and Ride was in greenbelt, and at that time, with that designation, no-one could build on it. The Planning Inspector then told us we needed B1 office space, and against better judgement, B1 office space was included in the next proposal. The goalposts moved again with the permission for a car showroom, and are now moving on even further, with shops and cay care centre.  Other variations have been introduced;  the appeal decision talks about glimpses of BMW from the A40 – it may look good from that side, but isn’t appropriate from the Grovefield Way side. There were meant to be trees on Grovefield Way. This proposal is part of same site, but it has not been built as was originally designed. 

 

Has a problem with the proposed daycare centre.  The Reddings Community Centre has childcare business; this is going to be decimated if a daycare centre is opened on this site – it will not survive. Regarding local shops, we weren’t allowed to consider these previously but now we can.  Park Stores, shops in the Reddings, Caernarvon Court – all will suffer.  The parking issue will get worse.  There are already issues with the park and ride; hopefully this proposal will have no impact on on-street parking, but unless full staff parking is provided, it will have a detrimental effect. .  Highways won’t have any further  S106 money, but however much is spent, it will not solve the parking problem.  MC asked how much S106 money left from Asda development – the answer is a lot, but not enough to mitigate the existing traffic problems – only a flyover or subway at Golden Valley could do that. 

 

HM:  agrees with a lot of what has been said.  Members have spoken about the nursery as not being needed, but has a different view on this.  There will be hundreds of jobs created on the site - people in the offices will need childcare – but doesn’t like where it is situated in the model of the site.  Is the paved area at the side of the nursery the outdoor playspace?  It is not specified how many children will attend the nursery, but there will be 27 staff, some doing shift work.  This isn’t satisfactory for a site with several hundred workers.

 

EP, in response:

-       To CN, yes, this site is definitely no longer in the greenbelt.  The council adopted the JCS on Monday; the site is in the plan and the land is no longer classed as greenbelt;

-       Regarding the impact on employment, the loss of B1 space, and whether there is sufficient justification for this to succeed at Appeal: officers tried to look at the situation in the round - the approach encouraged in the NPPF – and to consider all the pros and cons, merits and problems with the proposal; they made their recommendation on that basis. The loss of B1 floorspace is not sufficient ground to refuse when the proposal is also bringing lots of benefits – including a substantial number of jobs, even though not all B1 as in approved scheme.  It is all about delivery.  The 2007 permission was for B1 use, but no office use has been brought forward; this application is responding to market demands and proposing something different.  An inspector at appeal would look at this in same way as officers;

-       Regarding the sequential test, and why there is an issue re North Place.  A sequential test looks at sequentially  preferable sites for the locating  new stores, starting in the town centre and working outwards.  North Place was granted planning permission for a supermarket, which is why attention given to it; it is not a problem,  but needs to be flushed out.  Has sequential test been satisfied or not?  The retail consultant is here and will give his opinion.  The question is whether that site is available for development, and there is a question mark over that.  Enquiries have been made but not led to anything, which suggests that the site is not available.  There is, however, no contract on the site, which could suggest that the site is available  It is ambiguous, but even if the sequential test is not satisfied, officers would make the same recommendation..  It is the impact on the town centre and designated local centres which is taken into account and the report concludes that the proposal won’t have any impact on the town.  So can failure to comply with the sequential test be used as a reason to refuse?  We have to perform a balancing act here, but with the lack of any defined impact, it cannot be seen as a refusal reason; 

-       Regarding the S106 – the applicant submitted a draft 106 with the revised plans; officers negotiated more robust terms, taking into account the B1/non-B1 elements of the scheme.  As a result, the store will not not open until the B1 accommodation is built and ready to use;

-       Regarding trip generation, we have to rely on the county council to scrutinise the transport assessment.  It has been back and forward to applicant many times, but officers are now satisfied that the figures are robust, and generated with best practice;

-       On the issue of highways impact and whether the additional traffic will be over and above that for the extant permission  - highways officers consider the difference to be negligible within the peak hour;

-       To the question as to why a retail element has been included when business users are wanting to come onto the site, the potential occupiers are only interested in this location if there are complementary uses on site; if there was any demand for a pure B1 site, it would have come forward by now – it has  been available for 10 years;

-       Regarding the impact on local businesses, the NPPF gives guidance on what needs to be considered.  Some local centres have policy protection to ensure their viability – this is why there is retail impact assessment – but there are no requirements to consider other  commercial uses such as nurseries or to interfere with competition;

-       Does the percentage of the site to be used for retail include car parking provision?  No, it is just retail floor space.  However the car parking provision for the supermarket is also for the nursery and costa To MC, regarding the S106 for Asda and what the money has been spent on – there was an agreement which included £981,261 for traffic calming works on Hatherley Lane, and a contribution towards local/strategic traffic corridor management – the vast majority is now committed.  £110k remains to be allocated, and this will be spent on footways, junction improvements, bus stops, footpaths, and traffic calming measures;

-       Regarding linked trips,  highways officers always consider the percentage of trips to site linked to one or more of the other uses on site – where someone might pop in on way to somewhere else – and this is shown as a percentage reduction;

-       To MC, regarding the difference between hours of operation during construction and once the site is in business, construction is usually noisy and dusty and involves large vehicles in and out of the site; the hours proposed are normal;

-       Regarding the figures on job creation and the various uses, this has varied with the different proposals, but the expectation at appeal was for 1100 B1 jobs on site.  BMW has created 250 jobs, some relocated. Documents submitted with this application suggests the site will provide just  over 1000 jobs, so not a significant reduction.  PB queried the figures, but is comparing different uses.  Pure B1 floorspace would bring a certain number of jobs, but the non-B1 brings different expectation.  We have moved on since 2007, and advice from 2014 brings the overriding message that the reduction in the number of jobs is not significant, over and above the proposed scheme;

-       With reference to the Localism act, is not aware of any discussion or consultation with locals;  no pre-application submitted;

-       On the subject of flooding, the LLFA requires a development to deal with run-off at greenfield rates, with allowance made for climate change. The improvement here will be over and above that, taking climate change into account;

-       The Architects Panel  considered the revised scheme to be an improvement and the lay-out better.  They shared officer concerns about the street scene and landscaping, but the Architects Panel is not really required to come down one way or the other but to give a constructive commentary on the proposal;

-       To HM regarding the lack of playspace for nursery, there is nothing in policy re space standards, therefore nothing for planning  officers to take on board.

 

Mr Duncan McCallum, CBC’s Retail Consultant

-       as a broad point about need,  RT6 refers to need in retail development, but that criteria dropped in 2009.  Applicants are no longer required to show need for proposals.  Would suggest that Members avoid that line if they are minded to refuse. 

 

MC:  will the Chair allow further questions?

 

GB:  has six members still waiting to speak.  A lot of members have already gone over ground precisely, so requests only new points are made.

 

PT:  regarding the nursery, it would be better not having any outside participation.  It isn’t a good place for a nursery, surrounded by traffic, surrounded by vehicles.  It shouldn’t be allowed to be there.

 

BF:  was the only person to refuse the BMW application.  This is the severe cost of extending planning permission to B1 offices.  The Planning Inspector gave permission to build on the greenbelt because of the perceived need for offices, yet the site has stood empty for ten years – it was not required.  It is an economic fact that businesses want to be near facilities.  There are some real points that need to be made here. The BMW showroom has caused flooding.  The report says there will be flood alleviation measures by the developer, and we have to accept LLFA advice that flooding won’t be any worse than it is today as a green field.  The highways officer says will not make much difference to highways congestion, and the highways department is the lead authority.  Should we challenge this with officers and make remarks about things of which we have no real  knowledge or proof?  It is not what we are here to do.  Reasons given for refusal so far are based on  hearsay, and this is not enough to refuse an application.  We will gain something here: office space, a nursery.  Retail companies  looking for new sites is a fact of life, and while we may ask how the different supermarkets can continue make a profit, we can be sure they wouldn’t do job if they didn’t.  The proposal will provide work and a service.  Whether we like it or not, people go to drive-through coffee shops.  We have to judge the scheme on legislation as it is today, and need a legitimate planning reason to turn it down.  It isn’t on the green belt, the Localism Act has never really been enacted.  The officer report recommends the scheme be permitted, as it is in line with the NPPF and local policies.

 

CH:  still has some questions to ask.  Understands that a business park may need some complementary uses but a drive-through isn’t one – it isn’t providing a service for the offices or BMW, as there is nowhere to sit and have coffee.  They may go to the supermarket to buy a sandwich but the coffee shop is overkill.  Complementary uses  should enhance the estate – is not sure this does that. As a member of the economic development scrutiny committee, knows that they LEP has stated there aren’t enough employment land sites large enough for company headquarters, but this would fall into that category.  What conversations have there been between the LEP and the planning authorities.  This land is perfect in its aim to ‘market Gloucestershire as a place to relocate’; we are being told on one hand that no-one wants this business site and on the other that there aren’t enough business sites in the area.  The highways assessment states that any development will impact on peak hours, but would suggest that there needs to be an overhaul of peak hours.  It used to be a couple of hours in the morning and the evening and not at all on Saturday and Sunday.  Now weekday peak hours last much longer, and with another supermarket bringing more people to the area, it will cause huge problems, not just in peak hours.  This assessment needs to be tested by Gloucestershire Highways.  The nursery site looks big, and will surely impact on other nurseries.  An open space enhances the nursery’s offer, but does it meet OFSTED standards? 

 

SW:  BF talked about flooding experts saying the proposal will not make the situation any worse than before, but there is very clear evidence that this is not the case.  Since BMW was built, there is flooding on North Road, as far as Dundry Nurseries, where the greenhouses have been flooded  - this  didn’t happen before.  These are new flooding events.  The experts have got it wrong; the proof is there.  We are told that office space in the area can’t be sold but has been speaking first hand with a senior officer at GCHQ who said that if the right sort of offices were available on the site, they would be seriously interested.  The marketing company cannot be doing its job properly or not producing the right sort of offices.

 

CN:  is very conflicted, but having listened to all the comments this evening, is moving towards voting to reject this application.  Is amazed by BF’s comments, and in particular the reference to the 2011 Localism Act, which encourages Members of Planning Committee to engage with members of the local community before events, who can speak with inside knowledge and give opinions on what the community thinks.   Pulling together some of the strands and some comments of the officers:  the Architects Panel commented on application and the whole quality of the design, but wasn’t opposed to this development at the gateway to Cheltenham ; however the Civic Society said no, it wasn’t appropriate for this site, and the  ward councillor, MP and residents associations are all against it.  The NPPF recommends a balanced view of applications, weighing the benefits and pain in the scales of justice.  Officers have highlighted  the benefits, but for him the pain tips the scales of justice and the proposal should be rejected.  We need to take full advantage of B1 extant permission – with GCHQ in walking distance, and proposals to develop West Cheltenham for employment land,  sites such as this must be attractive for them; the B1 need for business land is important.  This application for retail/nursery/coffee shop – how many jobs will this create as opposed to proper office space?  There is a big difference, and we have already compromised re. BMW. Accepts what the officer says that the sequential test on its own wouldn’t tip the scales of justice, but isn’t convinced that the sequential test has been passed, or that the local retail study is accurate, or that the amenity of the local community won’t be affected by long hours etc.  Traffic is bound to increase.  The report says a hybrid development will have less impact and fewer  peaks but hours of operation  will be more sustained and the impact on community greater.  This, together with the lack of jobs, and  poor design, tips the  scales of justice for him to reject the scheme.  Having read the report closely, feels that officer support for the application is quite weak, and they seem trapped by planning regulations, where the default recommendation is to support.  Here there is a huge list of reasons to reject the scheme. 

 

MC:  thanks for breakdown on S106.  Cannot see how this scheme can work.  Have the figures for BMW traffic movements been checked?    Why haven’t figures for other sites with planning permission – the care home, Pure offices – been included?  We are told that drainage will be no worse than before, but before BMW, North Road West didn’t flood and now it does.  Why do local residents have to wait for the rest of the site to be built out before anything is done about the flooding?  When calculating the number of jobs, do relocated jobs count as new jobs?  What about GCHQ?  The highways officer talks about linked trips, but at the Tewkesbury Road retail park there is not enough parking space.  The retail assessment hasn’t considered Springfield shops, Hatherley Road, Benhall – why are none of these mentioned?

 

AH:  has no problem with a development like this but struggling to define what it is.  Understands that office space is needed  but it seems like overkill to have a supermarket too, and also a conflict of interest.  Knows of an ‘office village’ in Birmingham – a small high street of four shops to serve the workers, which works well - but this site needs to define what it wants to be.  It is either an office area or a supermarket.  The supermarket will not reduce the impact of the traffic.  Is in two minds whether or not to support; will probably abstain.  Wants to support but not enough reason to do so.

 

BF:  as a new point, the site has been available for B1 for over 10 years.  GCHQ and others are aware of it, but do not have the capital to pursue office space here.

 

EP, in response:

-       Regarding the drive-through Costa and how useful it will be to people on site – it will include a sit-in café as well, and outside seating space.  There are plans to improve the footpath links to site, making a more attractive route through the site to Costa.  It is not just a drive-through;

-       Regarding flooding, the LLFA look at discharge rates – it has to do this – can’t be any more than pre-development greenfield sites. It could be that material piled on site, used as compounds while BMW was being built, may have had an impact on run-off from the site.  This scheme has a drainage strategy to deal with run-off in controlled way. The LLFA says it will not create new water problems – the water would have to run off site one way or another - but the scheme has controlled mechanism which will improve the situation;

-       Why are recent schemes with planning permission not included?  With the extant scheme as a fall back, consultants are comparing the current scheme with that, not with an empty site.  This is why the data and comments may not as fulsome as some members expect;

-       With reference to the relocated jobs and whether these can be classed as new jobs,  BMW closed one site and amalgamated a number of showrooms, so 100 BMW jobs on site are from elsewhere.

 

 

 

Mr Duncan McCallum, in response:

-       Has referred to the glossary of the NPPF.  It refers to main Town Centre uses but specifically excludes individual shops.  Local shops don’t fall into the protected areas.

 

MC:  What about Coronation Square? Caernarvon Court?

 

DM, in response: 

-       These are not protected.

 

GB:  feels that all the issues have been well debated.  Will ask MJC to comment before moving to a vote.

 

MJC, in response:

-       There have been a lot of comments and different areas explored, and it’s clear that not all Members agree;  notes that four issues have been talked about as potential refusal reasons, some stronger than others:

-       The first is the employment issue - how the proposal is different from the 2007 consent, and the loss of B1 space.  Some Members are disappointed, but policy-wise, we need to be sure of what we are saying and whether it is in keeping with policy EM2 of current Local Plan. The emerging Local Plan carries very limited weight, but it is right to make reference to it, and  JCS  Policy SD1;

-       The JCS talks about employment being considered in a wider sense than just B1 uses, so we need to be careful.  There is also potential conflict with the NPPF and its requirement to create an economy fit for the 21^st century and policies around long-term protection.  The site is earmarked for employment use; the proposal is a viable alternative, taking into consideration market signals.  There is a lot of ammunition in NPPF for developer to throw at us at Appeal;

-       Secondly, the retail  issue and sequential test.  This would be difficult to sustain at appeal. From an impact perspective, considering small local businesses, the advice is that the impact is not enough to warrant refusal – so this is a tricky argument;

-       Thirdly, the traffic perspective.  Would advise caution here, as the advice from our professional advisers is that the traffic generation would not change greatly from the extant permission – so another difficult case to argue;

-       Fourthly, the design issue.  AH said the site needs to choose what it wants to be; has some sympathy with this comment.  There has been much discussion with the applicants regarding the layout of the site;

-       So, of the four possible refusal reasons, would say that two – lay-out and employment – are significantly stronger than retail and traffic.

 

GB:  so local policy EM2 and the NPPF are potential reasons to refuse, with officer backing?

 

CN:  Paragraphs 7-10 of the NPPF.

 

GB:  is PB happy with this?

 

PB:  is policy RT6 no longer relevant, as DM said?

 

MJC, in response:

-       Yes, RT6 is now lost as a result of the JCS.  Advises against any refusal on these grounds.

 

PB:  what about RT7?

 

MJC, in response:

-       That is also deleted by the JCS;

-       Do Members still want to pursue the retail/highways issues in their refusal?

 

CN:  Members are not being malicious – they want to put forward whatever reasons they can for a refusal, and to be able to argue strongly as possible on all issues.

 

CH:  regarding traffic, there is very little detail about the change.  Any change in traffic may be considered insignificant, but retail traffic is very different from employment traffic, and this has not been fully addressed.  If the retail argument wouldn’t stand a chance, would rather not include it.

 

GB:  suggests Members vote individually on the four suggested refusal reasons, after the main vote. 

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

4 in support

8 in objection

2 abstentions

NOT CARRIED

 

Vote on EM2 as a refusal reason

10 in support, 1 in objection, 3 abstentions

CARRIED

Vote on retail issues as a refusal reason

5 in support, 7 in objection, 2 abstentions

NOT CARRIED

 

Vote on highways issues as a refusal reason

9 in support, 2 in objection, 3 abstentions

CARRIED

Vote on lay-out and design as a refusal reason

8 in support, 4 in objection, 2 abstentions

CARRIED

PB:  there is also the issue of flooding – the scheme is supposed to reduce the risk, taking climate change into consideration.

 

GB:  concerns about flooding come up regularly at planning committee meetings.  Members have asked for training on this issue, and this will take place in the new year.

 

Vote on PB’s move to refuse on EM2, Highways and Design

10 in support

1 in objection

3 abstentions

CARRIED – REFUSED