Agenda item

18/00872/FUL Kingsditch Retail Park

Minutes:

 

Application Number:

18/00872/FUL

Location:

Kingsditch Retail Park, Kingsditch Lane, Cheltenham

Proposal:

Erection of two new retail units (Class A1) and associated works

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

0

Update Report:

None

 

Officer introduction:

MP informed Members that the application is for two new retail units following the demolition of a vacant industrial unit, and the application site also includes part of Kingsditch Industrial Estate in Malmesbury Road.  The two units will be situated between M&S Home and M&S Foodhall, creating 2,138 square metres of new retail floor space.  Officers are satisfied that the land will retain its employment use, in accordance with the emerging Local Plan, and that the design is appropriate within the context.  Highways officers have raised no objections.  The application is at Committee because of an objection from Swindon Village Parish Council. 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Sobic, agent, in support

Would echo the officer’s comments, and request that Committee approve the proposal.  The applicants have worked positively with officers at pre-app stage and throughout the application, to ensure the most appropriate development.  All technical consultees consider the proposal to be acceptable, including the Architects’ Panel, which considers it to be better use of the existing space, and an enhancement of the area.  The proposal complies with all retail/employment policies.  There is a strong demand for retail floor space and new retail stores, and this will assist in meeting that need.  The matters raised by the parish council have been addressed; the proposal doesn’t harm the neighbouring premises, which are also owned by the applicant.  The scheme has regenerative benefits, representing an investment in Cheltenham of £1.75m, offering 32 full- and part-time jobs, contributing £650k in wage generation, and approximately £380k in business rates for the council.  To sum up, it is a well-designed proposal, with positive benefits, will improve the site, finish the retail park, and provide employment for Cheltenham.

 

 

Member debate:

PB:  considers this an excellent application.  It will enhance that end of the retail estate – was amazed how busy it was, even on a Tuesday afternoon when Members visited on Planning View.  It will be a real boost, bring additional business rates to the town.  A condition is included to ensure the new stores cannot have uses which will conflict with town centre uses.  The scheme has his full support.  Notes the officer comment about trees. 

 

SC:  also considers this a good scheme, and an improvement to the site.  Would just like to make a comment, in view of the officer description and several comments referring to alternative means of travel.  This type of development is a car destination.  There is mention of alternative ways of travel, but this is the type of place most people will go to by car.  It is a pity that more effort is not made to make this sort of development more attractive and easy to use for non-drivers.  For cyclists, it is unwelcoming; for pedestrians, it is very difficult to access.  There is scope for charging electric vehicles, which is great, but these are just another type of vehicle.  We should support the proposal, but it is disappointingly car-orientated, and will draw people away from the town centre. 

 

PB:  it is the nature of this kind of development.  Cycle racks are provided.

 

MP, in response:

-       Trees are proposed as part of the development.  There is a lot of existing landscaping, including along Kingsditch Lane – this will be retained, together with new pockets of landscaping.  Trees officer has looked at these plans and is happy with the proposal;

-       To SC, as PB has said, cycling racks are included, but it is should not be held against the applicant that people will generally drive to the site rather than cycle.

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

11 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

 

 

Supporting documents: