Agenda item

 

Application Number:			18/00704/FUL
Location:	Blenheim Villa, The Reddings, Cheltenham
Proposal:	The erection of two dwellings, and formation of new vehicular access
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit subject to a 106 Obligation
Committee Decision:			Refuse
Letters of Rep:		26	Update Report:		Additional representations

 

VH introduced the application for the erection of two dwellings in part of the rear garden of Blenheim Villa.  The dwellings will each have four bedrooms, a double garage and two parking spaces.  They will be accessed via Grovefield Way, and will incorporate vehicle turning space in addition to the four parking spaces.  The application is at Committee at the request of Councillor Britter, due to objections from The Reddings Residents Association.  A Gloucestershire Highways officer is present to answer highways questions. 

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Martin Zwart, Vice-Chairman of The Reddings Residents Association, in objection

There are a number of reasons why Reddings residents are objecting to this application, but the primary one is the increased risk to public safety.  In 1992, when Grovefield Way was built, it was clear that it would sever The Reddings, a village since 1560, with negative impacts, including on wildlife.  Tree planting and hedgerows were considered essential, to remove the visual impact, provide a sense of the original village, provide a replacement wildlife haven and mitigate against pollution caused by traffic fumes and noise.  Since then there has been a great deal of development in the area; residents were assured that the greenbelt boundary would be preserved and strongly defended along the line of Grovefield Way.  It has not - the park and ride, BMW, and further offices have had a severe impact on the tree screening and led to a severe increase in traffic volumes.   Traffic now backs up in the mornings, past the application site, creating noticeable fumes and noise pollution – councillors and residents are pressing strongly for pollution monitoring as it is thought to already exceed permissible limits. 

 

If the principal urban area opposite is extended  and further development and removal of trees takes place, the barrier protecting The Reddings will be eroded, as this application proposes to puncture it.  The hedge at the access to the proposed dwellings is 5m tall and 4 -6m deep.  It is mostly outside the curtilage of the site, so the occupants will not own or control it. It provides refuge for hedgehogs, foxes, birds and squirrels, adjacent to a national cycleway.     

 

Reddings residents were concerned that there were no notices around the site regarding this application, and that the applicant is proposing to fell and cut into the hedge which they do not own.  The drawings don’t show the full extent of this – they show 4.1m but it will need to be at least 8.5m wide to meet the pre-application advice of Highways.  It needs to cater for incoming and outgoing vehicles, including large vehicles such as refuse lorries, and there will need to be a reduction in thickness over a considerable distance to the create visibility splays - Gloucestershire Highways acknowledge the sheer effort involved in maintaining this.  There could be devastating consequences if the hedge is neglected even a little, and exiting the site safely will be a challenging manoeuvre even for a skilled driver. 

 

Mr David Jones, agent on behalf of applicant, in support

The applicant seeks full planning permission for two dwellings with new vehicle access.  The unequivocal officer recommendation is to permit, subject to S106 agreement to ensure future maintenance of the hedge to maintain cycle visibility sightlines; for motorists, no adjustments are required.  There have been 26 comments, which can be summarised as follows: (1) highway danger: the highways authority raises no objection; the access will provide visibility sightlines based on actual recorded speed of traffic on the highway network;  no evidence has been presented to suggest that this should be ignored; (2) loss of hedge: a section of hedge will be removed to form the new access, but the impact has been examined by an ecologist, who concludes that the scheme is acceptable; the proposal included ecological mitigation and enhancements to ensure no impact to protected habitats; (3) waste collection: the application is for two dwellings in good size plots, with ample room for bins and recycling; roadside collection will be via Grovefield Way, as is standard practice; (4) the site is not allocated in the JCS: infill sites of this type are not subject to allocation; JCS Policy SD10 confirms that housing development will be permitted where it is infilling within the existing principle urban area of Cheltenham – making this proposal fully policy compliant; and finally (5) loss of amenity:  officers have assessed the impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties, and conclude that although the dwellings will be visible from neighbouring properties, they are far enough into the plot not to give rise to any issues of overlooking, loss of privacy or loss of daylight, and will not be overbearing or oppressive.  To conclude, the proposal is fully policy compliant, no objections have been raised by statutory consultees, the site can be safely accessed and the S106 undertaking will ensure that access remains safe in perpetuity.  There is no justifiable reason to withhold consent, and therefore urges members to support the office recommendation and approve the application.  

 

 

Councillor Britter, in support

As Members have heard from the representative of The Reddings Residents Association, there are a number of areas of serious concern with this application.  Many residents have continually reported excess speeds on Grovefield Way; a new opening – crossing the fast-flowing distributor road with right turns adjacent to a busy roundabout in considered dangerous.  The Manual for Street Design states that cycle trips must be improved or at least not made worse.  Vehicles crossing the pavement and cycle path will make them very much worse.  Little credence can be paid to the Highways Agency report, especially when it states that the speed limit on Grovefield Way is 30mph when it is in fact 40mph.  The anticipated vehicle movements each day are grossly underestimated, given that four parking spaces are being provided for each property.  There are also discrepancies with applicant’s traffic survey, which cannot be relied on.  This application is contrary to Section 7 of the NPPF, and does not contribute to making the area better for people.  Rather it will place further strain of traffic infrastructure, foul and storm water drainage infrastructure, and the  health of residents, in the form of noise and fumes intrusion.

 

The landscaping sensitivity is high, and shouldn’t be given away so easily for so little return.  The proposal is further contrary in relation to garden grabbing, harming the architectural integrity, townscape and environmental quality of the area, by eroding open space around buildings, contrary to JCS Policies SD4b and c.  It is also contrary to emerging Local Plan Policy D3, because it removes private space which makes a significant contribution to environmental life.  Trees which will have to be removed have a minimum 10-year life expectancy, and should not therefore be removed.  The proposal does nothing to enhance ecology, landscape or biodiversity.  Policy G12 requires preservation of trees, and does not allow them to be felled for relatively low-value development purposes.  Policy G13 states that development which causes harm to trees will not be permitted. 

 

Why is this proposal being suggested for approval with no safety audit and only a preliminary and inadequate ecological report?  Both are vital.  There is a recommendation for detailed surveys on both as conditions, but this will be too late and unenforceable.  Once permitted, the genie will be out of the bottle, opening the area to further unneeded development.

 

To conclude, with so much publicity regarding the harm of pollution to health, to permit a scheme which requires the removal of a substantial portion of this vital hedge which currently serves to mitigate such harm, in order to service just two dwellings would be a travesty.  Members have heard and read the grave concerns of local residents.  This proposal will have a profound, devastating, detrimental effect on the local community, and should therefore be refused

 

 

Member debate:

MC:  the first thing to say is that it was very interesting when visiting the site on Planning View, that the driver couldn’t park the minibus near the access point – because it was too dangerous.  He had to park next to the existing access for Blenheim Villa.  Is not against building houses but Planning Committee’s job is to make sure that the right houses are built in the right places, with appropriate access.  This doesn’t match any of those criteria.  Doesn’t like the fact that trees and hedgerow will have to be removed.  At the proposed access point, there is an overgrown hedgerow, which local Members have asked Gloucestershire Highways to maintain, but nothing has been done about it.  To exit the site onto Grovefield Way, it will be necessary to cross a verge, an unmaintained hedgerow, another verge, a footway, a shared cycleway, another verge, and then exit onto Grovefield Way.  Questions whether the Highways officer has actually visited the site.  His consultation report has been extensively re-written by objectors, as it had a number of errors, including the wrong speed limit and scant comment about the fact that the access would be cutting across the cycleway.  It seems that most of the report is made up with standard, generic comments. 

 

The ecology report is preliminary, giving rise to the question, how will the proposal impact on hedgerow, wildlife, vegetation?  The proposal to overcome this concern is  another condition – but how would this be enforced?   Grovefield Way itself is busy, with a roundabout close to the junction, and BMW on the opposite side.  Where is the traffic impact survey?  Members had to refer to neighbours for information, who informed them that there has recently been an accident at this junction.  The collision resulted in the road being closed for a considerable amount of time.  Traffic regularly exceeds the speed limit on Grovefield Way. There is a S142 notice regarding the hedgerow, but this is impractical, unmanageable and unenforceable. 

 

Realises that Members are not here to redesign proposals, but if it was to be rotated 180^o and share an access with Blenheim Villa, many of these concerns would be removed.  As it is, concerns with highways safety are too great; will not support this application.

 

DB:  with regard to access, on Planning View was struck by how close to the roundabout the proposed access is situated – this could be quite dangerous for cars turning in and out, noting the speed at which cars were coming down Grovefield Way. Vehicles will be crossing the cycleway and pedestrian footpath, possibly at speed.  It is vital that the hedgerow is kept trimmed – are the owners going to keep doing this?  Was also concerned about refuse vehicles; can see them having great problems.  The minibus couldn’t stop outside, and if refuse vans are able to do so, they will stop visibility for other road users.   

 

JP: agrees with much of what has been said, so won’t go over the same ground.  Approves of the design and lay-out of the proposal, but cannot support it, based on the access arrangements.  After Planning View, looked at Grovefield Way on Google, and could not see one single other access onto that road.  This encourages drivers to exceed the speed limit;   it is an accident waiting to happen.    A similar proposal on this site was refused in 2002 and nothing has happened since to change that view of the site. 

 

BF:  Members should remember that the driver parked the minibus in The Reddings on Planning View because that is where the access currently is; the access to the proposed dwellings on Grovefield Way is not there yet; it wasn’t because of the volume or speed of traffic on Grovefield Way - we need to be accurate about this.  Also, there is an entrance onto the roundabout from another site – the large development of static homes.  Traffic is a problem but we cannot make plans for people who don’t comply with the law; people do speed – has seen the pictures of the accident, which was probably caused by drivers going in excess of the speed limit.  The hedge is a highways hedge, but residents can cut it without the permission of GCC if it is becoming a hazard.  It isn’t a listed hedge, and the loss of wildlife habitat from a small section of it would be minimal.  Cannot see this is a reason to refuse. 

 

SC:  this is a nice development – nice houses and nice for whoever gets to live there – but there is a problem with access.  Grovefield Way is a busy road, difficult to cross, and there is no similar access anywhere else on that road.  Is concerned not just with access but also with the practicality of it.  The hedge is an issue – someone might be technically responsible for it but is it actually going to be cut?  Will Highways do it regularly?  How practical is this?  Looking at the layout of the access to the highway, how would it actually work with a car about to emerge from the new property onto Grovefield Way?  The driver will have to nose the car to the edge of the property – which can’t be seen over the hedge – then edge forward towards Grovefield Way, blocking the route for cyclists and pedestrians, and will then have to wait for a gap in the traffic to allow the car to move forward.  Alternatively, the driver will wait for a gap at the edge of the property and then accelerate over the cycleway when the opportunity arises.  This is potentially dangerous – cannot support it at the moment.  Looking for a solution, could the new dwellings be accessed through Blenheim Villa and The Reddings?   

 

VH, in response:

-       Regarding the hedge, the ecological appraisal confirmed that there are no protected species in the hedge; a mitigation enhancement strategy is proposed, and this can be enforced by enforcement officer.

 

CC, in response:

-       There are a lot of trees on the site, mostly fruit trees, and mostly half-eaten and not worthy of protection – they could be felled tomorrow.  A lot of tree replacement has been included in the proposal, with species suitable for the site.

 

David Simmons, in response:

-       When assessing an access point, visibility is the key.  The standard distance required is 120m on a 40mph road, which this provides.  Accordingly, highways officers do not have any concerns;

-       Regarding the cycleway, this will require an additional splay to ensure adequate visibility.  Forward visibility is good along the length of the route, allowing cyclists to see a car emerging well in advance;

-       The position at the end of the carriageway near to the roundabout will improve visibility, motorists will be slowing down as they approach the roundabout, resulting in drivers only waiting a short time before they can emerge onto the highway.  Grovefield Way is a busy road, but there are gaps where it will be possible to pull out – other motorists will probably flash their headlights to indicate that they will wait.

 

PB:  can officers provide further clarity on the S106 agreement?  What is its intention and who will it be served on?

 

VH, in response:

-       The S106 is for the long-term maintenance of the hedge.  It is the responsibility of the landowner, as highlighted by Land Registry.

 

PB:  so in this case, that is the house owner.

 

MC:  has a few further questions for the highways officers – whom he thanks for attending Planning Committee tonight – this is the first time in his experience this has happened.  Is concerned about the tone of the language used – should, maybe, normal elsewhere in the county… These terms make him uncomfortable and don’t change his opinion.  In addition, there is no speed limit for cyclists, and some go very quickly.  There are very long queues on Grovefield Way at certain times of the day;  traffic can vary between being stationery and travelling at 60mph.  If a car is waiting to access Grovefield Way on the cycleway and a cyclist approaches at speed, an accident could result.  This is not a solution for getting vehicles on and off the road.  If access was on The Reddings, it would do away with all these concerns.  There have been issues with speeding on The Reddings too, but there are a lot of parked cars which slow things down, making 30mph a more reasonable estimate that 60mph.

 

AH:  this isn’t directly related but the highways officer suggested that motorists may flash their headlights to let vehicles from the new dwellings emerge onto Grovefield Way – this is not in the Highway Code, and this advice should not be given out.

 

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

4 in support

10 in objection

NOT CARRIED

 

PB:  Members must now come up with a reason for refusal.  Does MC want to move to refuse and suggest some reasons?

 

MC:  looking at the list of policies and guidance, could it be refused on Local Plan policies GE2 – private green space;  CP4 Safe and Sustainable Living – it won’t be safe for people living in the properties emerging onto Grovefield Way; GE3 Development within Extensive Grounds -for the protection of the trees? Would Emerging Local Plan D3 –be appropriate - environmental life?  It is difficult.  Some people may not feel the hedgerows have value, but he does.  Suggests any of the above.

 

PB:  suggests Members should focus on the highways issue, although this is difficult as there is no objection from the highways authority, so who will represent the Council if there is any appeal?

 

EP, in response:

-       If the consensus is around highways issues, we need to look at JCS Policy INF1 – the Local Plan policies on infrastructure have been superseded by the JCS.  It is a long policy but the key relevant points here are: developers should provide safe and accessible connections to the transport network; developers will be required to assess the impact of proposals on the transport network to demonstrate travel safety.

 

PB:  also, as a town, CBC is doing as much as possible to encourage cycling. Does MC agree to move to refuse in INF1?

 

MC:  having heard what the officer read out, considers this to fit perfectly as a reason to refuse.  Gloucestershire Highways should have looked it up and refused on those grounds along.

 

Vote on MC’s move to refuse on JCS Policy INF1

10 in support

2 in objection

2 abstentions

REFUSE