Agenda item

MJC introduced this application for a new two-floor retail unit as above.  The site straddles the administrative boundaries of Cheltenham and Tewkesbury boroughs, and identical applications have been submitted to both councils.  It is at planning committee at the request of Councillor Clucas, due to concerns about site access, anti-social behaviour on site, and public right of way.

Public Speaking:

Mr Peter Waldren, agent, in support

Having read the very through report and update, it is clear that the key issues have all been covered.  Councillor Clucas raised the issue of anti-social behaviour (‘boy racers’) and the proposed right of way diversion.  Will meet with Councillor Clucas and local colleagues in the new year, to discuss these issues further, but the retail park managers have advised that the boy racer issue don’t relate specifically to the site, but more to the roads around it.  The site’s car park entrances and exits are all barriered, and will close 30 minutes after the shop units close.  Furthermore, raised tables have been installed along the road running through the site as a further speed prevention measure, and all cars entering and leaving the car parks are monitored by automatic number plate recognition, all of which ensures that the potential for anti-social use of the site has been fully addressed.   A separate diversion order application for the right of way will be made after tonight’s resolution, and will be an improvement on the existing route which is subject to anti-social behaviour, fly-tipping and rough sleeping.  It will be safe, lit, paved and maintained, and the highways authorities have raised no objection to it.  Retail advisers have confirmed that the proposal meets the required retail tests in that there are no sequentially preferable alternative sites and no significant adverse retail impacts on the town centre, and the retail consultant has no objection, subject to the conditions set out in the report.  The green belt designation of part of the site (in Tewkesbury borough) has now fallen away following the adoption of the JCS.  Regarding traffic and parking, the highways authorities is content that 41 parking spaces is sufficient for the additional floorspace, particularly as customers will already be visiting other units on the site.  No objections have been raised, having specifically considered highway safety and the compatibility of this proposal with the Elms Park proposal.  The applicants have worked closely with officers and amended the scheme significantly since its original submission in July – specifically to maintain the majority of the existing trees on the site – and now believe the proposal is stronger as a result of that collaboration. 

Member debate:

SW:  as a member of the county right of way committee, which will vote on the diversion order application which is likely to follow this proposal, will not speak or vote on this application tonight.

NJ, in response:

-       That is the correct course of action.

BF:  Unfortunately Councillor Clucas couldn’t attend the meeting tonight due to other commitments, but as fellow ward councillor,  has discussed the issues with her in advance of the meeting.  Is content that the anti-social behaviour issue has been addressed.  It is good to see staff parking on the site – not many retail units provide this.  The area has improved dramatically over the last few years, and the Gallagher Park management is doing a good job.  Hopes that this application will be permitted tonight.

CN:  the agent talked about 41 car parking spaces – are these for staff or customers?  Uses the site a lot and always struggles to find a space.  The greenery, trees and right of way are very attractive.  Will these all go if staff car parking is to fit on the site, or is there any other way to retain the right of way and solve the car parking issue?  Have there been any negotiations with Elms Park?

MJC, in response:

-       Regarding the additional 41 car parking spaces, 32 of these are intended for staff use.  There has been no objection to this from a highways perspective.  These dedicated spaces can be used by all the retail units;

-       The trees and greenery has been the subject of much discussion with the applicant, and perimeter planting can be successfully retained on the half of the site behind Sainsbury’s.  The greenery to the north cannot be retained through this scheme, but if the greenery goes, the applicant will try to reintroduce some form of landscaping.  As so often, Members have to consider the balance – does the council want successful economic units or viable greenspace;

-       The NPPF is pro-economic growth, and this application cannot fail because of existing trees.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

11 in support

0 in objection

3 abstentions

PERMIT