Agenda item

Officer introduction:

JS introduced the application for 13 dwellings on land adjacent to Stone Crescent, which is at Committee at the request of Councillor Holliday.  The officer recommendation is to permit, subject to an S106 agreement.

Public Speaking:

Mr McCreadie, agent, in support

Speaks as a chartered surveyor, specialising in residential development, and thanks Members for the opportunity to speak on this development for 13 residential units including five affordable, on a former part of the Rowanfield School site.  Since the previous refusal, has been working with planning officers to meet all policy requirements, and has produced a scheme which is now recommended for approval.  New Dawn Homes bought the land from the county council in 2014, with planning permission in place.  It is an allocated site in a sustainable location, and will provide much-needed 2-5-bedroomed modern houses, similar to those built in Village Road, featuring yellow brick and wooden windows.  Local residents are concerned about the lack of parking, but 2.3 parking spaces will be provided for each home, with 3-4 spaces on plot for the larger homes, in addition to 10 additional on-road spaces for visitor parking.  Rowanfield School already brings additional traffic to the area, and this proposal will not make it worse.  There will be room on the road for refuse lorries, and a 2-metre footpath for pedestrians.  The scheme will provide quality homes in Cheltenham, from an award-winning company – New Dawn Homes was highly-recommended as a small house-builder by LHBC.  S106 contributions will be made for local schools, and hopes therefore that Members will support and permit this much-needed housing development.

Councillor Holliday, on behalf of local residents

There have been numerous concerns from local residents.  These include concern with highway safety, the increase in traffic, and flooding (now resolved).  Although the principle of development of the site was established in 2014, when it was allocated for residential use in the emerging local plan, any development needs to be right for the site.  New Dawn Homes sowed seeds of mistrust early on by not communicating with local residents despite saying that they had; they produced photographs which misrepresented the reality of parked vehicles in Stone Crescent; and then compounded the damage by removing a number of trees without any warning.  Residents’ concerns about these issues are documented in the agenda papers.  Alstone Lane into Wharfdale Square is a narrow access; at school times and when visitors are parking there, it is even narrower, giving rise to the question as to how emergency vehicles would be able to get through.  When did Members visit the site?  At school pick-up times, there is parking chaos, littering the estate with vehicles; at weekends and evenings, residents’ cars are often parked in the turning circle.  There is great concern about the impact of the proposal on the existing roads, particularly during the building phase – pedestrian safety and the safety of children in Wharfdale Square is particularly worrying.  There are rumours that the communal area in Wharfdale Square may be sacrificed for additional parking; this must remain a green space.  As ward councillor, urges Members to refuse this application.

GB:  reminded Members that they have received a letter and photographic evidence from a neighbour who cannot attend the meeting to speak tonight.

Member debate:

PB:  this is an on-going scheme which he has visited several times, and feels it is a scheme which he can support.  It has many positives, not least the five affordable homes and £50k contribution to education.  It is a scheme which builds houses for people to live in – a good thing.  Realises there are issues with the proposal;  New Dawn Homes needs to look at the way it conducts itself – it has been cavalier in the way it has dealt with residents and with the Council.  The trees issue highlights this approach – they have been cut down in a very cavalier fashion - New Dawn Homes needs to get its act together going forward.  Regarding flooding, has the flood scheme been signed off by the LLFA?  If so, why has the report not been circulated?

MS:  notes the Civic Society’s comment about access to the recreation area behind the site.  Is that a public open space or a private one?  If public, can local residents access the site at present?

JS, in response:

-       Confirmed that this is King George V playing field – a public space;

-       There is currently no direct local access to the field from the site.

MS:  this is disappointing.  The new houses at the back will probably want to put gates in their back gardens.  Feels it would be churlish not to include a public footpath through the estate to the playing field.  Regarding the design, agrees with comments from PB – the houses are necessary and the lay-out is acceptable. 

JS, in response:

-       One of the refusal reasons on the previous application was the lack of a sustainable drainage scheme.  The applicant had to revisit this, and the LLFA is now happy with it – a benefit of the previous refusal;

-       Regarding the tree issue – some trees have been removed before the application was submitted.  A management/protection plan going forward, from the construction stage, will be included;

-       the conduct of New Dawn Homes is not a planning issue;

-       To MS, takes his point about the lack of a footpath, but this is the status quo at present.  It is regrettable but not a major issue on which to refuse the application.

PB:  his point was that if there is an improved flood risk assessment and drainage scheme, why is this not included in the papers?  Also, is the highway going to be adopted?

JS, in response:

-       The road will be adopted, apart from a section at the end of the cul-de-sac;

-       Regarding the FRA, this wouldn’t naturally be included in the papers; it is a report, and can be viewed in the documents part of the planning file, together with other reports and statements not included in the agenda.  All are available for separate viewing.

SC:  a lot of objections relate to the increase in cars and traffic.  It is extremely disappointing that there is no connection to the green open space.  As the council is encouraging walking, cycling etc, this would be useful.  Is it possible to stipulate an entrance to the field as a condition?

MC:  is delighted with this proposal for 13 houses, including five affordable – these are much needed.  There is clearly history to this, but is so sad that the houses are being built on a playing field, and will add to the traffic issues caused by the school.  However, society dictates – many children are driven to school, and this is a sad indictment with the loss of the playing fields and worsening of the traffic situation.  Will support the proposal, on balance, welcoming the five affordable units, but remains disappointed with the way this has been arrived at.

JS, in response:

-       To create access to a site in other ownership would be an issue.  It could be explored more, but as the playing field is not in the applicant’s ownership, it would not be straightforward.  The application is as it is, for determination tonight – although there is nothing to stop an access being added in later.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support – unanimous

PERMIT