Agenda item

Application Number:			18/02171/OUT
Location:	Land adjacent to Oakhurst Rise
Proposal:	Outline application for residential development of up to 69 dwellings including access, layout and scale, with all other matters reserved for future consideration (revised scheme following refusal of application re. 17/00710/OUT)
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:					Permit
Committee Decision:				Refuse
Letters of Rep:		158		Update Report:		Officer update; additional representations

 

Officer introduction

MP:  Members will recall the outline application for 90 houses which was refused by Planning Committee in July 2018, on the following grounds:  loss of veteran trees, impact on the setting of listed buildings, impact on highways and amenity of local residents, impact on an existing badger sett within the site and biodiversity generally, and visual impact on the landscape character.  This revised application is seeking outline permission for 69 houses, including 40% affordable housing, with access again via Oakhurst Rise.  Highways officers consider the impact to be acceptable.  The application covers access, lay-out and scale; appearance and landscaping will be covered under reserved matters should the principle be considered acceptable.  As set out in the officer report, the officer recommendation is to permit subject to a signed S106 agreement to secure affordable housing, and a revised schedule conditions as set out in the blue update.

 

GB:  there are additional representations from Charlton Kings Parish Council and an additional officer update. Advised Members that, at his discretion, there will be two public speakers on each side, for strictly three minutes each, and advised speakers that they will be timed and informed 30 seconds before they need to finish. 

 

Mr Gander, Cheltenham Flood Action Group, in objection

Has studied the flood risk assessment.  The proposal should be rejected because it completely fails to deliver the JCS overarching strategy requirement that all new development provides an overall reduction in flood risk.  Adjusting for climate change is not a reduction because that is an existing risk. When we analyse flood risks, we need to ask if the model methodology up-to-date and fit for purpose, the assumptions reasonable, the data reliable, what happens if the model goes wrong, and do the model outcomes pass the common sense test?  This model uses IH24 methodology instead of the more up-to-date FEH methodology recommended by the Environment Agency.    This is an old model, not right for this design. Neither is it consistent with the JCS, which says these plans must use up-to-date modelling technology

 

The first thing that makes no sense  is that the plan wants us to believe the lie that  28,100 square metres of this site comprises permeable soft landscaping when we know that the geology of the site is  impermeable and that no infiltration is possible.  Hoping we don’t spot this trick, they then input into the model only 13,600 sq metres as the surface area to use as the basis for the SUDs design – the trick enables them to reduce surface area used to calculate surface water run-off by 70%, and generate an impossibly low   predicted flow rate for a steeply-sloping site of 3.6l per second – about one toilet flush.

 

Using this corrupt data input, they then reduce the actual run-off rate from about 14l per second – which would require storage capacity of about 3,300 cubic metres – to a reduced capacity from last time of approximately 1400 cubic metres to 1,100 cubic metres. 

 

The developers don’t want to build storage to the right size because it’s expensive, and because for the next 100 years – for the lifetime of this development - they have to maintain it and pay for the maintenance.  They are not allowed to do this because county SUDS guidelines state that the design must take into account all the water on site up to the discharge point including water that may enter the land via neighbouring land, higher land or open water courses.   Challenges anyone to explain how it can be safe or logical to approve a model that only takes into account 30% of the actual area and related run-off to be managed. 

 

Mr Marsden, on behalf of Friends of Charlton Kings, in objection

Represents over 1000 residents supporting FoCK.  Seven months ago, Members agreed with their arguments.  There is no substantive change in this application to address the Committee’s concerns.  In three minutes, can only cover national policy concerns, which include but are not limited to the following: 

 

1.  Planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan.  This application for 69 homes bears no resemblance to Cheltenham Plan currently under examination by the Planning Inspector.   A major objection is access to the site.  Argued last time that turning a cul-de-sac with a 14% gradient into an access route that contravenes the GCC Manual for Streets design is unsafe, and errors in distances and transport data have led to unsound assessments.  Planning Committee agreed.  This application is for 216 bedrooms.  There is no mention of the over capacity of roads, sewers, doctors’ surgeries or schools.  This is overdevelopment, not sustainable development; Charlton Kings can’t cope.
2. Heritage assets are precious, and the planning process is supposed to protect them from harm.  The statutory objections from Historic England have not been weighted as advised; CBC heritage experts have been overruled, errors have been allowed to stand.   Historic England has agreed a policy position with CBC re. the future development of this site,  but this application takes no account of that position.
3. Affordable housing must be profiled against need. This application doesn’t meet the housing need for two-bed, four-person houses, and relies entirely on a future negotiation that could  prove this site is not financially viable. 
4. We have an obligation to provide a healthy society for the future and guard against the loss of valued sporting facilities. Developing this site will remove an iconic cross country route for ever.  Thousands of children from all backgrounds have benefitted from the site since 1957, yet its loss is described in the application as a public benefit not harm.

 

In summary, CBC reported to the Planning Inspector that there is a strong local supply of houses and it will be able to deliver on its JCS commitment.  The harm from this application to the landscape, ecology, heritage assets, and future generations would be permanent.  This is not 25 homes, Oakhurst Rise is not the right access.  Please reject the application.

 

Mr Coles, St Edward’s School, in support

Is the bursar of St Edward’s School Trust, and can confirm that the school fully supports the application.  St Edward’s is a charitable trust with two schools, and this development is a unique opportunity for the charity.  The school’s lease on preparatory school site is diminishing, and approval of this development will lead to the transfer of the freehold to the Trust, which will secure its future on the site.  Ownership will provide new opportunities to improve the facilities enjoyed by St Edward’s children, as well as many local schools and community groups.  The school is confident that the planning application can be delivered without compromising the environment and experience at St Edward’s.  The school fully supports the proposal and urges Members to do the same.

 

Mr Firkins, agent, in support

This is an emotive proposal, but would like to focus on the planning facts and realities. Last year, the officer recommended approval of a 90-unit scheme.  It was refused by Committee for the reasons set out in the report.    The applicant listened carefully and, as a result:   

-          no veteran trees are to be removed, protection zones are respected, and  170 new trees will be planted;

-          County Highway’s consultation response is very detailed, and confirms no danger to highway safety.  After the last debate, alternative access options were revisited and discounted, due to greater impact on heritage assets, junction proximity on London Road, and safeguarding issues.  Oakhurst Rise connects to the adopted highway and is the most logical access.  Fewer units will mean less impact, and enhancements to the network elsewhere are secured;

-          The new layout provides more space around the GII* listed building.  All experts agree that any harm is ‘less than substantial harm’; there is simply disagreement about where on that scale the harm sits.  The latest independent ECUS report commissioned by the Council agrees that the whole site can be developed, with guidance on how the assets can be safeguarded; this scheme complies with that recommendation;

-          Natural England and the county ecologist have no objection.  Badgers are protected but not endangered, and replacing their sett is a sensible and permissible approach to its long-term retention, and has been shown to be the best overall solution, agreed by Natural England;

-          The previous application was not refused on flood grounds.  The LLFA was very clear in stating (as recorded in the minutes) that ‘the proposal will deliver benefits to flood risk; if left as is, existing development will be at greater risk over the next 80 years’;

-          There are 25% fewer units, 30% fewer bedrooms.  Just 30% of the site will be built on –50% including gardens – and 40% affordable housing provided in the exact mix requested.

The site is not AONB or greenbelt; it is in the principle urban area, a sustainable and logical location for housing. The lack of a five-year housing supply adds weight in support.  The layout shows how much the scheme has changed in response to the previous debate.

 

At the local plan examination last week, CBC was quite clear that 25 units suggested by Historic England is not an upper limit.  The site will change, just as all the houses we live in changed the landscape on which they were built.  This is a sustainable location and there is a shortage of housing – with nearly 400 people looking for affordable housing in Charlton Kings and none provided in the last 40 years.  The recommendation is clear.

 

Councillor Savage, in objection

Addressed the Committee last July when the previous iteration of the application was up for consideration.   Councillors present will recall thoughtful and well-informed discussion followed by a clear and unambiguous outcome.  This application is a variation of the previous one; there are changes, but these are minor and do not address the key reasons why the Committee rightly and overwhelmingly rejected the previous scheme.  In the previous debate, a myriad of refusal reasons were highlighted, well founded in local and national policy, and these remain as relevant and applicable to this proposal as to the previous.  The proposed access was rightly highlighted in the previous refusal; Members have experienced it on Planning View, approaching the site from Ewen’s Farm and Oakhurst Rise.  This will be the sole access, including for the heavy construction traffic over many months or even years. Thereafter, it will be the only access for hundreds of additional cars, vans and lorries on a daily basis, as well as refuse and emergency vehicles.  Such a major development with Oakhurst Rise as the sole point of entrance and exit would be completely inappropriate and wholly inadequate, transforming a steep, winding cul-de-sac into a major thoroughfare.  In addition, the often winding, narrow and congested roads of Ewen’s Farm already serve as a rat run between the A40 and Hales Road.  This development would result in a significant increase in traffic flow on residential roads that are simply unable to cope.

 

Councillors also rightly highlighted that although the site is not technically in the AONB, development here would have a major impact on it. The landscape and character, and views in and out, would be clearly and detrimentally affected by permitting such major urbanisation on the green edge of our town.

 

We are fortunate to have a team of dedicated, hard-working and professional officers, and it is difficult to go against their recommendation for a second time, but the Committee’s decision last year was the right one.  Implores Members to have the courage of their convictions.  They made the right decision, and should stick to their guns, stick up for their town, by making the right decision against and refusing the application.

 

Member debate

 

GB:  will take Members’ questions to officers first.

 

Councillor questions

BF: what does the site contribute to the five-year housing land supply?  SF said no veteran trees would be lost, but the tree officer’s report stated that one would be lost?  Is disappointed that the LLFA is not here to answer questions – a contentious issue – would like to ask questions.  Mr Gander emailed his thoughts on flooding to Planning Committee and officers; thought there would therefore be someone here to answer Risks associated with the 14% gradient was also emailed to Members, and has  asked Chair, Vice Chair and planning officer whether this should be looked at from a legality point of view in case there should be a judicial review.  How many years are left on the lease of the school? Although he supports the school, its freehold is irrelevant, and not a reason to permit or refuse this application.

 

SC:  would like clarification of the site diagram – is the pink inverted Y-shape area at the bottom connecting to the road there as part of construction period, representing a road or path at the end, or for some other purpose?

 

MC:  it is nice to see County Highways officers in attendance, and notes that they have provided a very comprehensive report.  Have officers visited the site?  Regarding school places, we are told there is no spare capacity in local schools, therefore S106 funding from the development will be needed, but have the schools been asked if they can absorb extra capacity?  Some schools are fully developed can’t take any more pupils.  Contributions to Balcarras and the primary school are mentioned, but could they physically take any more pupils?  This scheme is different and much more sympathetic towards trees than the previous one.  Doesn’t like chopping down trees, and asked last time about replanting, but how long will it be before the new trees absorb the same amount of water as those currently on the site? There is potential flooding issue here.

 

PB: as this is a new application, is it right to assume that if Members are minded to refuse, they are not tied to the same refusal reasons as before?  Can they consider additional reasons?  Flood risk is a potential reason to refuse but was not included last time.  Would welcome officer comments on this.

 

DB: would be grateful for information about housing land supply.  Is not quite sure what we have to decide at the end of it. Should we assume we have five-year housing land supply, assume we haven’t, or accept that we don’t we really know at the moment?  Like to know what bearing it has on what we are doing.

 

JP:  has a question for highways officers, regarding comments at Appendix 1 of their very comprehensive report.  When considering the gradient on Oakhurst Rise – a red line for him as far as development is concerned – highways officers state that reference should be made to GCC Manual for Streets.  Went to that document this afternoon to find it has been revoked.  Will Oakhurst Rise need to be re-profiled to make the gradient acceptable?

 

RW:  as a substitute, has questions that other Members may know the answers to.  Regarding housing density, the proposal is for 69 dwellings – less than the previous 90, but more than the 25 suggested in Policy HD4 of the emerging Local Plan.  What is the rationale for officers accepting that 69 dwellings should be permitted, when they have previously come up with figure of 25?  Would also like answers on flooding – there are very different views of risk from county officers compared with those of the objector, who argued his case well.

 

Chris Chavasse , Trees Officer,  in response:

-          To BF, re. the veteran tree – made two separate comments to application, firstly saying that clear demarcation lines and values when considering whether a tree is classed veteran  are not succinct.  The applicants have employed experienced arboriculturalists who have produced different results. Considers T3014 to be a fine old tree, with a lot of characteristics of a veteran tree but is not classed as veteran by the quite distinct characteristics involved - including its size/diameter of trunk – using guidelines from Natural England.  As a tree of value, asked it if could be retained; this was not possible, but other veteran and notable trees on site are retained.  Is fine with that – sad to lose it, but it is the least valuable of the older trees on site;

-          To MC’s question re. how long before new trees absorb the same amount of water, cannot really say as it is difficult to be quantitative, with so many variables at play, not least as rainfall, sunshine, climate change, increase/decrease in storms, pest, disease,  all of which have an effect.  At the same time, common sense would suggest that different trees will take time mature and different trees demand absorb different volumes of water.

 

Lucas Arinze, Highways Officer, in response:

-       To address the comments made by Cllrs BF, JP and MC, regarding the gradient of Oakhurst Rise, Oakhurst Rise is a publicly maintainable historic highway which has served 30+ dwellings and a sub-station for a number of years. There is nothing to suggest that this section of highway in unsafe and there has been no personal injury collisions recorded. Manual for Gloucestershire Streets is only guidance and what it sets out is not absolute values. It provides guidance for developers and tells them what is definitely acceptable. There is nothing to say such gradient wouldn’t be acceptable; if all developments had to meet the values contained within Manual for Gloucestershire Streets, many developments in Stroud and the Forest of Dean for example wouldn’t be possible.

-       To MC, yes, highways officers have visited the site and appreciate the concerns raised;

-       To JP, it would be unreasonable to request the developer to re-profile the whole of Oakhurst Rise, and it could make the development unviable;

-         Highways officers would look at the gradient of highways within site should the developer choose to have them adopted.

 

John Rowley, Planning Policy Team Leader, in response:

-          Regarding the five-year land supply, this site does not feature;

-          to questions seeking clarification about this,  an update has been provided today – very last minute, due to government changes to National Policy (NPPF)  announced on Tuesday - we cannot prove we have five year supply.  Stats from government indicate that we may move have to change buffer from 20% to 5%.  Hasn’t been able to run through figures in enough detail to update the trajectory since August statement.  The recommendation must therefore be that, as there is lack of clarity on new statement on five year supply, the most recent statement – confirming a 4.6 year supply, as at August 2018 – is what we have to fall back on this for purposes of tonight;

-          To BF, to confirm – this proposal doesn’t contribute to five year supply – it is within the trajectory but outside five-year period.

 

Nick Jonathan, solicitor, in response:

-          To PB, regarding additional refusal reasons, new reasons could be considered  if there has been a material change in circumstances between now and the orginal application. To my knowledge therehasn’t been such a change t – so adding new refusal reasons is not recommended.

 

Michelle Payne, case officer, in response:

-          To BF, confirms that the LLFA is not here.  They were asked to come, but considered that they could add nothing to the debate other than confirming that the drainage strategy in the FRA demonstrates the site can be development safely.  As this is an outline application, it is only establishing that the principle is acceptable;

-          Regarding the school lease, cannot comment on how much longer this has to run; St Edward’s has provided a letter of support, but limited weight can be given to how much public benefit the proposal will provide.  It is up to Members to decide how much weight they give to this;

-          To SC, the pink area on the map indicates the drainage connection easement, not roads or footpaths;

-          To MC, re. the S106 contribution for education, this now comes under CIL .  It is for the County to decide on where it should be spent.   Both Balcarras and Charlton Kings Primary serve this area, but cannot comment on whether they have the capacity to expand;

-          To RW, regarding the number of dwellings proposed, 25 is the number identified in policy - it is not an upper limit, but an approximate figure.  As set out in the report, very limited weight can be given to the emerging local plan at the moment, as it is still going through examination.  Regarding the specifics of this site, the officer recommendation would be to permit whether it is a potential land allocation or not.

 

Member debate

BF:  regarding the five year land supply – this is always given weight at appeal.  We are very close, and the last figures showed us to be ahead of target with completed schemes, at 108% we are doing OK but don’t currently have a five-year supply.

 

In 2008, strategic sites were identified for the JCS, including one site adjacent to his ward where the biggest percentage of new houses the town has even seen are to be built. The reason why Consortium cannot bring this development forward is that County Highways Officers have requested them not put in an application as there is no highways plan for 4,000 dwellings.  If this proposal is refused and goes to appeal, the Inspector would have to look at this.  Part of this is making Junction 10 a four-way instead of a two-way junction.   County Councillors say JCS has identified a strategic need – what we need in the  future, for young people, workers etc. – and we need a highways plan to make this happen.  We may get agreement for a four-way J10 at the end this year but there is no guarantee.  The need for it has been compounded by the West Cheltenham development, which will include 1000 houses.  It is one reason why we do not have a five year land supply.

 

Last year, wrote to County Highways asking for monitoring at Six Ways junction, Holy Apostles junction, Hales Road and Old Bath Road at A40 – there are times when all these junctions are near or over capacity on projections done.  Asked for rubber tube monitoring – very simple – to determine the number of vehicles and their speed – but no-one was prepared to do it.  Wrote to local highways officer for area, and received a reply that he is aware of Councillor Fisher’s concerns but does ‘not appear to have any data for these locations’. 

 

How can we have a report on projection for the Oakhurst Rise proposal – traffic leaving the site, 28.6% one way, 14.2% another way - when we have no up-to-date data? Most of what we have goes back to 2010 – it is historic and a lot changed in the area since then.  Hales Road traffic lights are one of the most air-polluted areas in Cheltenham as a result of traffic volume. Wanted data and numbers that laymen on Planning Committee could use to make a judgement.   This hasn’t come forward, and has now been told he can pay for the work from his own highways local money, which is an insult.  Without the data, cannot see how we can support this proposal. It was previously refused previous on highways grounds, and   no meaningful, up-to-date data has been provided with this application.  The development of the Dunkerton retail unit on the A40 factory is adding further to the traffic on this road.

 

 Is a great supporter of St Edward’s – it is a fantastic senior and junior, model school – but if it acquires the freehold, this could be a two-edged sword – there will be more pressure on the school to realise its asset – a very valuable piece of land - which could mean further development.  It could be hoped that the Carmelite monks should be considering the school, not money.

 

Regarding the emerging Local Plan, the agent said 25 houses on this site is not the upper limit, but it isn’t the minimum either – we could have less. On Monday, Council talked about changes to the town’s CO2 emissions, with  environmentally friendly, zero emission houses.  Members didn’t throw the previous application out on account of numbers – this was not the issue.  It is a shame the LLFA is not here to answer questions. MP said they considered the flood risk assessment to be feasible. Would remind members also that the drawings are only indicative of what the houses will look like – this is misleading, and design not fixed.  Members should not be misled.  May not look like that should we permit. And attempts to defend the 14% gradient compound felony by allowing further 69 houses on Oakhurst Rise are ridiculous.

 

GB:  would ask that Members be concise and considerate about the amount of time they take to make a point.

 

PB:  this is a challenging application, both last time and this time.  Congratulates Michelle Payne, the case officer, for the huge amount of work and time she has put in to this application – living and breathing it for many weeks, including outside office hours.  It is a massive application, the most important on tonight’s agenda, possibly the most important Committee will consider for a long time.  Before focusing on issues, we must be clear that this an outline application, not detailed, and the only reason to pass it would be for the delivery of houses. Understands the importance of housing to the town, as demonstrated by CBC committing £100m for social housing. The five-year housing land supply is a nonsense from government re figures and growth;  it is evolving all the time – there was another update on 19^th February, with the good news that the previous buffer of 20% more than the likely requirement has now been reduced to 5%.  It is clear the way the government is going, and clear that we are over supplying. We are nearer to five year supply tonight than we were  on Tuesday – it is a moving target.

 

Believes Policy HD4 to be relevant – Members have had a response from the officer, confirming it is relevant but has limited weight due to Plan status.  The Plan has been through two consultations, and we are now at hearing stage. It is all about timing and balance; the Plan is evolving, near to conclusion - it is a shame it is not in place, but weight can therefore be attached.  It may be small but it is nonetheless important.  It is all about balance, weighing pros and cons.  This application has one pro, but a lot of cons.

 

Members have been told that outline applications don’t count towards housing numbers; if it was a detailed scheme, we would be talking about numbers, but we’re not. 

 

Historic England has issues regarding the impact of the scheme, as discussed at the last meeting.  It strongly objects to the impact on GII* listed building; it cannot comment on the GII-listed Charlton Manor, but there will be a significant impact on that too, referred to by CBC’s conservation officer. Accepts that it is about balance at end of day, but the previous refusal reasons re. harm to heritage assets still stands - NPPF 193, 194, 196, JCS SD8.  This scheme doesn’t reduce in any way impact on those two buildings.

 

Regarding trees and biodiversity, congratulates the applicant for making this scheme less harmful than the previous one, retaining more trees, but it is still not acceptable.  The same refusal reasons as previously still stand regarding impact on trees, habitat and biodiversity.  The Woodland Trust is a well-established professional organisation, and we must have due regard to its comments. Although it is no longer the case that many ancient or veteran trees will be lost, the development of the site  will have a long-term impact on the survival of the remaining trees. In addition, wildlife will suffer and cannot be sustained if the site is developed to this intensity.  The ancient and veteran trees will be subject to deterioration, surrounded by housing.  There will be conflict between the houses and the trees, and  applications for shading, trimming branches, taking trees down – we see applications to take down TPO’d trees  time after time after time.

 

Natural England is concerned about the loss of irreplaceable habitats that this sites provides - pastures and hedgerows.   It would be a crying shame to let this magical site go for an important but small number of houses. Other less sensitive sites will come out of the plan process. This is the most sensitive site we could consider developing.

 

Impact on AONB was one of the previous refusal reasons and this proposal has the same impact as before.

 

The Increase in traffic issue has been well covered; the previous refusal reason still stands.

 

Regarding flooding, the LLFA has let us down badly on this and other sites.  It is shocking that no-one is prepared to come and defend its report to the meeting.  We are lucky to have organisations to help us in decision-making – we listen and take notice of comments from the Civic Society and Architects Panel – and   Cheltenham Flood Action Group should be a consultee going forward in the same way.  It has produced a damning analysis of the flood risk assessment,   referring to all policies on which this scheme will impact.  These are professional people who have gone through the proposal in a thorough way, with regard to the NPPF, etc.  Can officers confirm that if this outline application is permitted, flooding is a reserved matter and would come back to the Committee at the detailed stage?  If so, it should  come back with a proper scheme to comment on, not a wishy-washy ‘yes, it’s OK’.  Would like flooding added as a refusal reason, together with Policy HD4.

 

It is all about balance. On the pro-side, it’s the case that the proposal would result in short-term provision of construction jobs, there is a lot of work on in the town at the moment.  The scheme will provide additional homes, including 28 affordable units – these are important but don’t count towards housing supply, and as it is an outline, it is not definite that these will ever be delivered.  It would be different if this was the detailed proposal. 28  affordable units is good, but the loss of trees, effect on habitats, remaining trees and the AONB setting, impact on listed buildings, flooding, traffic, loss of cross country course (though there is no planning reason to refuse on this) – all these will have a negative impact.

 

Will move to refuse as described – can pick up all NPPF paragraphs to refuse.  If it is lost, would like all conditions tightened up and extra requirements added.

 

GB:  the officer update at paragraph 4 sets out that landscaping is a reserved matter, and this includes drainage.

 

PB:  has read this.  Would like to know if flooding can be added as a refusal reason.

 

SW:  it is difficult to follow two previous speakers who have said so much.  On one side, this is a beautiful, green piece of land – would like to have it on his doorstep.  Would like it to remain green, but it is due for development – understands this has to happen, for the advantage of the town generally.  Yes, it is a shame to develop, but we need houses, and they have to go somewhere – this makes the application difficult to refuse. 

 

Having said that, drainage is an issue.  The LLFA says it can be sorted, but we were told this at BMW in Up Hatherley and since that site was developed, there has been significant flooding in the area .  What guarantees are there on what we are told by our experts?  The first speaker has done his homework, and is suggesting a totally different outcome to our expert. 

 

If there is no other solution, it is a difficult case – it is not our job to redesign the application.  Last time, it was asked whether other access points could be used, to make the development more sustainable, but we are told this isn’t possible.  Didn’t go up  Oakhurst Rise on the bus this time, but last time the bus couldn’t get up to the top – Members had to get out and walk. 

 

Yes, it is a highway, but we will be asking that road to double its capacity. Highways officers say this is acceptable.  Highways officers always say this, but we know in our heart of hearts that this is not going to provide acceptable access, particularly with construction vehicles, emergency vehicles etc.

 

If this was the only objection, may find the proposal OK, with all the other objections, is finding is a struggle to vote in favour of this application.

 

MC:  will be brief.  A lot of good points have already been made by BF, PB and SW.  This is a beautiful site, full of history, and a cross-country route – chopping down trees and hedgerows here is a great pity.  Moving badgers from their natural sett to a plastic one is ridiculous.  Regarding access, it is ludicrous to say that it will be safe, up the hill of Oakhurst Rise, with a 90^o bend.  If local schools can’t accommodate the additional pupils, parents will have to drive to other schools, putting further pressure on the highway network.  Highways officers say that personal injury records show six collisions in the last five years, one recorded as serious, all due to driver or cyclist error – are they saying we can develop highways as much as we want as long as drivers don’t do anything stupid.  This is ludicrous, as is the message to keep on developing as County Highways say there is no problem.  Regarding ecology, biodiversity, CO2 emissions, this will make is much worse, as will driving all sorts of vehicles up and down Oakhurst Rise.  Won’t support the scheme; is glad PB has suggested reasons to refuse and fully supports them all.

 

DS: one reason why he didn’t vote for this last time was due to the paltry access to the site. Through from Charlton Kings to Hales Road is already a rat run, and any vehicle bigger than a car doesn’t work.  Was worried by feedback after the previous meeting, when made a suggestion to enter the site through the schoolgrounds up side of hedge, that he had suggested an alternative entrance through  Charlton Court Road.   Did not say that – the effect would clearly be the same as the Oakhurst Rise access. 

The Oakhurst Rise access point is not good enough; doesn’t like their being only one access to the site. One in and one out would be better; 70 houses with only one access point not is not sustainable.  Agrees with SW.

 

JP:  it is fair to say there have been some very eloquent and well-argued presentations.  Has two items to add:   one of the main refusal reasons last time was access, and it is disappointing that Highways Officers do not offer supportive advice to the developer or residents as to how access could be made better.  Secondly, last month there was a debate at length about Cheltenham’s ambition to become carbon-free by 2030.  This development application doesn’t support that. The site is quite remote, and the vast majority of residents, despite provision of ebicycles, will use their cars to access local facilities.  This is not something we would want to support.

 

GB:  Members have covered a fair bit of ground; doesn’t want to extend the debate unnecessarily, or to cut people short, unless there are new points to be made.  Would like to bring the debate to a conclusion.

 

PB:  would like to read a relevant paragraph from NPPF which is the whole point about this application.  (reads) ‘When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should  apply the following principles:  development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable  habitats  such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees, should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists’.  Under ‘wholly exceptional reasons’, it talks about infrastructure projects including nationally significant infrastructure projects, orders under the transport and works act and hybrid bills etc.  Does not believe this scheme falls under that definition of exceptional reasons.

 

SC:  some very good points have been made.  The proposal has some good points:  in plain view, it looks great, but it comes down to a single point of access.  It was clear on planning view that it would be a big ask to get all traffic through that point. For him, this is the deal breaker. The plan view doesn’t show that the development is on a significant hill, which causes drainage issues and so on, with a 14% gradient.  Leckhampton Hill has an average gradient of 11% and as a utility cyclist, is not sure he could get up that road with shopping etc.  There is a sustainability problem issue here. As discussed at Council on Monday, with global warming and more severe winters, Oakhurst Rise could become very dangerous in winter time.  Is very worried about this access point, and agrees with comments from other Members so will not repeat them.  Cannot support the proposal.

 

Mike Holmes, in response:

-          Has listened to the debate, and is concerned that the proposal reasons suggested will not be supported at an appeal by people we rely on for consultation.  This would mean opening up the need to find evidence from other sources, in order to justify and provide evidence for the refusal reasons. A situation may arise, even if the appeal is unsuccessful, that the appellants may well be awarded costs. This doesn’t only happen when the Inspector overturns a Council’s decision;  it  is all about justifying the refusal reasons;

-          Since the previous application, there has been a reduction in the number of units; flooding was not identified as a reason for refusal previously; highways concerns were, even though this had no support from highways officers. Needs to point this out to Members before they vote.  

 

BF:  regarding a possible appeal, the previous application was rejected on highways grounds, and there is a clear indication in the report tonight and officer email, that no data in that area has been provided to back up highways comments. How can they do a report with no data?  Officers should be asked to provide data that we can use to make a judgement; an Inspector will ask for it.  There is nothing in the NPPF to say applications should be accepted because authorities are frightened of costs.

 

GB:  it is the responsibility of officers to bring this to Members’ attention, and part of the process we must go through. 

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

3 in support

11 in objection

1 abstention

NOT CARRIED

 

PB:  as custodians of the council tax payers’ money, it would be irresponsible of Members to put forward frivolous, unsupportable refusal reasons when there are enough good reasons to refuse.  Will therefore not persist with refusal on flooding grounds, as this is an outline application and the situation is evolving.  Would like to add evolving policy HD4, but otherwise propose the same refusal reasons as last time:

-          Harm to the listed buildings  JCS Policy SD8, NPPF paragraphs 193, 194, 196, 190;

-          Negative impact on biodiversity NPPF paragraphs 175C, 175A, SD9 (2), Local Plan GE6;

-          Harm to the AONB , as previously, CP3 and SD6;

-          traffic refusal reasons as before.

 

John Rowley, in response:

-          paragraph 48 of the NPPF refers to the weight that should be given to relative policies in emerging plans, stating that that there are three factors to take into account:  the most relevant is the extent to which LPAs may give weight to emerging local plans, according to the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; the less significant the unresolved objections, the more weight can be given.   

-          Policy HD4 maintains a number of objectives still being considered as part of the Inspector’s examination. It may not be prudent to give this as a reason for refusal – it is not a good reason to refuse at this present time.

 

PB:  it may be limited weight but it is still weight.  The outstanding unresolved objections relate to the loss of green space, biodiversity and historic buildings – the bulk of objections reflect this.

 

GB:  it is up to PB what refusal reasons he wants to propose, but Members should be aware that refusal reasons which aren’t robust could result in costs against the Council.

 

Nick Jonathan, in response:

-          Didn’t include Policy HD4 as a refusal reason last time; cannot give additional weight now than could last time. Would caution against including it now.

 

John Rowley, in response:

-          The local plan has been submitted since the last application, so there is some difference in terms of weight that could be granted to the emerging policy because we are now at examination stage but having said that the outstanding objections have not yet been resolved in any further sense, so it’s different but not materially different. 

 

SC:  can it be confirmed that Policy CP4 will be included, with regard to  access via Oakhurst Rise and sustainability of the development. 

 

PB:  this was used previously and will carry forward.  Suggests that the Chair and Vice-Chair could review the refusal reasons and make any further comments.  Regarding HD4, JR is right – we are further down the process.  It carries some weight  and although not huge, it is therefore material.

 

GB:  if Members are happy for the Chair and Vice-Chair to look at reasons to refuse in detail afterwards, got general feel for them, fine tune them post-meeting if suits members.

 

Vote on PB’s move to refuse

11 in support

0 in objection

4 abstentions

MOTION CARRIED - REFUSE