Agenda item

JS introduced the application as above, with a recommendation to approve for reasons set out in the report and report update. It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Britter.

Public Speaking:

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

His key concerns were largely around the proposed A1 use which would generate considerably increased traffic low 7 days a week as opposed to the B1 office development which would likely be confined to operating at capacity 5 days per week. A1 use would result in increased noise and air pollution at the weekends and the evenings and prevent residents being able to spend time in their gardens, open windows, cause issues for children sleeping and inhibit their ability to participate in recreational activities such as cycling. He noted that the 3m high louvered panels designed to screen the roof heating and cooling plant would be extremely unsightly and the 2m deep embankment would only seek to exacerbate these negative effects. The development would be contrary to the JCS with regards to its adverse impact on residents in terms of emissions, noise, odour and visual amenity and non- compliant with the NPPF as a result of its negative effects on noise, air and light pollution. As the development contravenes the national and local policies, he requested that the application either be refused or at the least deferred until proper consultation had taken place.

Paul Fong, local businessman addressed the committee. He endorsed the officer report but wished to raise the following points with Members. He was a local businessman and this proposal affected the development of his business. He expressed concern at the lack of any land and buildings available for business needs in the town and as a result businesses were leaving the town in order to find suitable accommodation. He believed this situation would destroy the economic prosperity of the town. He stated that the original application had been granted in 2007 and nothing had changed since then despite the JCS being in place. He highlighted that there was extremely limited office space, just 5000 sq.m in total in the town which was insufficient. He acknowledged that strategic sites at West Cheltenham and North West Cheltenham would create space but this was some way off and would require large infrastructure projects. He welcomed the Grovefield Way proposal as it would create 13,000 sq.m office space for local businesses. Businesses needed to expand desperately. His business had been in the town for 25 years and employed 20 people but now it required doublethe amountof space.He wishedto stayin thetown andhad spenta yearlooking for

suitable accommodation but had found nothing suitable. Without this development, he would sadly have no other option but to leave the town. This development would provide  prestigious office space and the proposal was policy compliant. He therefore urged the Committee to support the application to enable local businesses to expand on to thissite.

Councillor Britter, in objection

He confirmed that the B1 element of the development is in keeping with 2007 permission and is supported; but there are no exceptional circumstances that would have supported A and D class development in the greenbelt site as there is no local need for them. His key concerns were that retail traffic to the development on the Grovefield Way distributor road would be seven days a week, 7AM to 10PM with up to 282 vehicle movements per hour throughout each day. Whereas B1 use of the site would be five days a week, 7.00am-7.00pm, leaving residents in peace at evenings and weekends. This hybrid proposal is incompatible with a residential area and, is very different in nature from the existing outline permission. Despite requests, he noted that no impact assessment had been carried out on small business in the area, including the playgroup in the adjacent community centre, existing child carers and nurseries, or top up shops; in the locality. Many of whom are within 5 minutes’ walk, or drive of the site and may not be viable if this proposal is permitted. He noted that the NPPF states that new developments shouldn’t pass on flooding to neighbouring sites and whilst BMW experts said it wouldn’t, it has. The experts and LLFA consultee identify a problem with the phase 3 water disposal and suggest a condition, however, it has still not been resolved. Roads in the area are already congested and whilst B1 traffic for the proposed scheme may be neutral because of the existing outline permission, but HGVs, retail and nursery traffic, will make it much worse than B1 alone. He advised that the constant hourly flow of retail traffic will have serious implications for The Reddings and surrounding area, and the implementation of the JCS traffic strategy for the Cyber Park extension to the Park & Ride. He explained that no study had been made and no comments received by the officer’s, or Highways. He felt that the Aldi carpark would be too small and 141 cars per hour would not fit into the 104 spaces provided. He queried why the Aldi would be located on the site, where it will have the greatest adverse impact on residents and the greatest risk to users of the nursery. Given the significant evidence of the damaging effect of traffic fumes on young children, he questioned why developers would place a day nursery in the middle of the park which is flanked by Grovefield Way the A40, the M5, the Arle Court roundabout, the Park and Ride, BMW garage and a busy Aldi carpark. Combining the Aldi and nursery car parks will also cause health and safety problems for parents and children trying to find a parking space, then crossing a busy car park. All contrary to good health and safety design and NPPF paragraph 110. Whilst he welcomed the increased landscape proposals, he reported that they did not offer “glimpses” as the inspector intended in 2007. He reported that light spillage and pollution from buildings and carparks would pollute the residential area and the problem would be exacerbated by reducing the hedge screening along North Road West from 5m to 2m. He felt that the proposal offers nothing back to the community and their objections have not been recognised, or addressed by the applicant, or the officer’s report. The developer had gone against the clear indications of the Inspector in 2007 and except for omitting Costa, had not listened to, or acted upon the member comments in the planning committee debate in December 2017. The application does not comply with JCS policy INF1 and SD2, SD14, nor with NPPF paragraph 110 in respect of the Aldi/nursery carpark. The policy case for Aldi on this site is tenuous and there was no policy case for the nursery. Post approval variation applications for BMW has led to significant parking and congestion problems for residents and the Park & Ride. He requested that the application be refused, or at least deferred until after the inspectors hearing in January2019.

Member debate:

SW: Welcomed the increased office space which was in considerable short supply in the town. However, he shared the Reddings Resident Association’s concerns regarding the proposed supermarket and on site nursery. Grovefield Way was currently gridlocked for muchof theday, particularlyaround ArleCourt roundabout,and thiswould onlybe

exasperated by the development. The fact the Aldi traffic would be consistent and not concentrated to working hours was also a key concern. He noted that there had been considerable issues with flooding since the BMW development, as the water course had been filled by the developers of the BMW site. He advised that the road had been resurfaced last year and now needed doing again, an issue which needed addressing by the  developers. He advised that he would be supporting if the application were for purely B1 use but disapproves of the scheme in its currentform.

PB: Also shared members of the Reddings Residents Association concerns regarding the potential retail use. He acknowledged that unfortunately the local planning authority did not have sole discretion for such developments but were constrained by government policy and the NPPF. He felt it extremely unnecessary to have two supermarkets so close together and noted the lack of support from Gloucestershire Highways and Highways England. He was cautious that any decision they made could be subject to appeal. Defending the current B1 use was key as there was a considerable shortage of office space in the town. He reported that they had lost 30,000 sq.ft of office space to residential in the town as developers were more concerned with residential developments. He did not feel however that the luxury apartments and bespoke residential developments catered for the residents of Cheltenham. Office space was becoming increasingly more expensive with rates now as high as £30 per sq.ft. Grovefield had been allocated employment use in the emerging plan, and as such, the land should remain for B1 use. As office use had been granted in 2007 he failed to understand why the developer had put in a controversial hybrid application for retail use. He noted that at EM2 of the Local Plan, changes away from job-generating uses are only allowed in certain circumstances, and he could not see how the development would add value or benefit the local community. The site was the best B1 office space in the whole of the town, largely as a result of its strategic location off the M5. He summarised that the town needed office space, not retail and the development would not create sufficient jobs. Would be refusing on the grounds of lack of B1 use.

MC: Noted that the late amendments contained a lot of information and he had identified a series of issues with the report. Suggested deferring until all the anomalies were in order. He was surprised to see that no highways officers were in attendance given the significant impact on highways. He noted that office space was needed to stop businesses leaving the town and the supermarket was unnecessary. He felt that the developer was seeking to maximise profit at the expense of the community and the environment. There were a number of policies that the scheme was in contravention of that could be used as grounds for refusal, particularly SD4 of the JCS. He disagreed with the officer’s comments that there would be negligible impact, given that the area was often heavily congested with traffic. He noted that Arle Court was already at 180% capacity and failed to see how any further developments could be permitted in light of this. He had serious environmental concerns and queried where the last air quality data had been taken from, as it appeared to have been recorded at the south east corner, which is the furthest possible location away from the site. Deliveries to the supermarket were also a major concern and he feared for people’s safety if large arctic lorries were being reversed whilst people were parking in the supermarket. Councillor Collins found it ridiculous that a nursery be located in the centre of a car park considering all the harmful fumes it was also impractical for example if there was an emergency and the nursery needed to be evacuated. He acknowledged the 32 conditions and questioned how many of these were actually enforceable. Following questioning from the Chair, Councillor Collins advised that he wished to hear the other Members comments before formally proposing a deferral.

DS: He explained that the planning committee had spent a lot of time deliberating an application at Grovefield Way for 2 houses, which had subsequently be refused, partly due to the increased traffic, he acknowledged that this application was considerably greater. He queried how the traffic flow would work for those turning right into the site as they would hold up the oncoming traffic.

JP: Shared the previous Members concerns. Whilst he accepted that in some instances the use of Green Belt sites was necessary, he felt that maximum benefit should be gained from such sites. He acknowledged that there was a desperate need for office space in the town and reported that 80% of office space was less than 500sqm which was inadequate for the majority of companies. He advised that in the JCS there had been a requirement to create 15,000 new jobs and they would need to make the necessary provisions to support these jobs. The site was ideal for a business park, particularly considering the good transport links from the M5 and M40. He was pleased to see that the members of the Redding’s Residents Association were accepting of the B1 use. He was alarmed that the extant permission for B1 development did not include a condition removing permitted development rights and was concerned that each building on site could be changed to a B8 use which would cause increased traffic and reduce the number of jobs created. In any circumstance, he hoped to see the removal of development rights from the site. Whilst he was not opposed to the nursery, he agreed that it was in the wrong location and should be relocated to a more environmentally friendly site close by.

SC: Shared Members points about the need for office space in the town. He could not understand why a new supermarket was required given that there were already two in close proximity to the site. He believed that the nursery could be a positive asset as it would benefit those working on the site. He also shared concerns about the traffic and feared that increased traffic would deter people from using the park and ride. He felt that even a small increase in traffic could be extremely detrimental and agreed that retail use would prolong  the traffic over a greater number of hours.

JS, in response:

-                     It was an employment led development and that whilst14% of the site allocation was non B1, the non B1 uses also provided employment. He noted that the preference for B1 was because more jobs were created per sq.m. He advised that A1 retail on average creates 100 jobs per 17,000 sq.m which was the equivalent to 150 office jobs. So, if the whole site were to be purely B1 use, it would only generate an additional 50 jobs. He advised that the site in total was predicted to create 1000 jobs and reminded Members that if they were minded to refuse zero jobs would be created. He reported that the site had been granted B1 use for 11years.

-                     With regards to the flooding issue, refusing would actually prolong the problem as developers were currently unable to get on site and rectify thesituation.

EP in response:

-                     If Members were minded to refuse they would need to use the 3 reasons for which the previous applications had been refused as abasis.

-                     The applicant had made attempts to address concerns by improving the balance of B1 use. She reiterated that non B1 use would still generate employment and that 100% B1 may actually have a greater impact on the highways as the level of traffic during office peak hours would be increased, whilst retail traffic would be spread out throughout the course of the day. The scheme was considered to be a betterbalance.

-                     Permission had been granted for the last 10 years, yet it hadn’t come forward, this was an opportunity to deliver key office space for thetown.

-                     In response to Councillor Payne, the site had already been taken out of the Green Belt.

-                     The nursery was a common feature of modern day businessparks.

SW: The issue of flooding was as a result of BMW dumping spoil in the water course and so this needed rectifying irrelevant of what happened with the site in question. The reason that the site was taken out of the Green Belt was because there was not enough office space across the town.

PB: Felt it wasn’t the Council’s fault that the site had not been developed over the last 10 years. Noted that the nature of the jobs would be different for office compared with retail and if the offices were to be 2 storey an increasing number of jobs would becreated.

MC: Didn’t agree that zero jobs would be created as there was already permission for B1 use. Questioned whether retail jobs were as valuable to the economy as B1jobs.

SC: Questioned whether officers felt that if the site were a supermarket instead of purely office it would make the traffic better rather than worse.

JS in response:

-                     In theory, B1 may create better high end jobs but supermarkets would also create managerial and supply chain jobs and mixed jobs were necessary to help the economygrow.

-                     From the trip generation analysis conducted, they had concluded that the difference in number of trips would be negligible if the site had a supermarket compared with 100% B1use.

PB: Felt it important to define the exact number of jobs that would be created as 100% B1 use would create considerably more jobs than the officer’s had predicted.

MC: Now all Members concerns had been heard he was withdrawing his proposal to defer.

MC: As it had been suggested the committee were bound by the previous reasons for refusal, he questioned what the previous reasons for refusalwere.

JS in response:

The application was refused as it was considered to be contrary to policy SD1 of the JCS, policy EM2 of the adopted Local Plan and policy EM3 of the Cheltenham Local Plan.

MC: Queried whether they could, therefore, refuse on those 3 policies if they were minded to.

SM: The previous application had been refused, partly as a result of a coffee shop to the front of the development which the committee believed impacted on the overall appearance of the site. He proceeded to read the previous reasons for refusal. If Members were minded to refuse, the reason for refusal would need to be amended to omit the section about the visual impact of the coffeeshop.

Members agreed that the previous reasons for refusal still applied, although the section about the coffee shop beomitted.

Vote of officer recommendation to permit

4 in support

8  inobjection

NOT CARRIED

MC: Proposes refusal on the grounds previously stated as application is considered to be contrary to policy SD1 of the JCS, policy EM2 of the adopted Local Plan and policy EM3 of the Cheltenham Local Plan.

Vote on MC’s move to refuse on SD1, EM2 and EM3

9  in support

3 abstentions

REFUSE