Agenda item

Planning Application Documents

Councillor Seacome left the chamber for the duration of the debate.

JS introduced the applications as above, the proposal was for the demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of the site comprising 7 apartments and 2 semi-detached houses. The application was at committee at the request of Councillor Brownsteen due to concerns about parking and highways safety. He further advised that a late representation had been received from a neighbour in objection.

Miss Shill, on behalf of residents, in objection

Miss Shill highlighted that despite the fact the development  was on 48 Swindon Road, 75% of the development faced on to Normal Terrace and 100% of the dwellings had access via Normal Terrace. She indicated that this would have a considerably affect on the residents of Normal Terrace, yet no assessments had been conducted, including on the impact of the local infrastructure, safety and residents. Residents key concerns were around highways, reduction in parking spaces and refuse issues. She noted that the development made no provisions for the storage of recyclable waste and had assumed that residents would use the current bins which were already overfilled on a weekly basis. She highlighted that residents on Normal Terrace were already competing for limited car parking spaces and were often required to park on surrounding streets. She felt it unrealistic to assume that because of the  developments proximity to the town centre residents would not have a car.  She cited further concerns around highway access and pedestrian safety as the development would remove the space in front of the garages that was presently used for turning. As such, residents would be required to reverse out on to Swindon Road and the addition of the flats would further hinder reversing drivers line of site. She reiterated that the residents were not against development, however, felt that the plans were not right for this pocket of town.

Miss Brown, on behalf of the applicant, in support

Miss Brown confirmed that the applicant  owns the site at 48 Swindon Road site. She felt that the site was a tired site and in need of investment. She confirmed that the proposals were for the demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to include a mix of contemporary and traditional buildings which would remove the elements of the site considered detrimental to the character of the conservation area by the planning officers.  She highlighted that the applicant had proactively engaged at all stages of the process in order to achieve a well designed scheme that the conservation officer had not objected to. The development would also create 9 additional much needed dwellings.  Whilst there had been no provisions for parking she reasoned that the site was in a highly sustainable location close to local amenities and services. She acknowledged the publics comments regarding parking however noted that it was not the applicants responsibility to readdress additional parking issues in Normal Terrace. She confirmed that adequate bin and cycling storage had been provided within the site so that the proposal would not encroach on to the street. Of note was the fact the County’s local highway authority had not objected to the application and that the development accorded with the principles of the NPPF and the development plan.

Councillor Johnny Brownsteen in objection

Councillor Brownsteen’s main concerns were around the danger to motorists and pedestrians on Swindon Road and Normal Terrace. He reiterated residents concerns that the removal of the turning space would force residents to revers out on to Swindon Road and would further narrow the entrance to Normal terrace creating two blind turns. He acknowledged that parking was a problem across Cheltenham, particularly in St Pauls as a result of its proximity to major employers and felt the that permitting this proposal would exacerbate these issues. Of note was the fact that half of the residents of Normal Terrace had met with Councillor Brownsteen which highlighted the opposition to the proposal. He advised that residents understood the need for more housing, however, this proposal would adversely affect them and their safety. Whilst he recognised the councils pressures to meet the land supply requirements he felt that the small numbers of dwelling created form this development were  not sufficient for this proposal to count towards that target in a significant way.

Members debate

MC: He had concerns with the application, however, welcomed the 9 additional much needed dwellings. His main concern was the fact that the 2 parking spaces had now been removed and residents would have to pull out on to Swindon Road.  He acknowledged that Cheltenham Borough Council does not have any adopted minimum parking standards but reasoned that people living in such a location would still have cars. He felt that the plot was unsuitable and there was a great concern for the safety of pedestrians. He noted that a site notice was displayed and the proposal was advertised in the Gloucestershire Echo, however, had concerns as to whether this met the councils responsibility with regards to statutory notices.

TO: Queried whether only 1 Normal Terrace had been notified of the application as per the residents comments. He had concerns that the proposal may generate more demand for residents’ parking permits in zone 11 and had contacted Gloucestershire County Council who had advised that there was no limits on the number of permits issued. He felt that they should be lobbying to change the policy on residents parking permits  as this was causing problems throughout the town. 

JS in response:

-       Confirmed that legally the site notice and advert in the Echo does satisfy their statutory requirement.  He advised that the Council had met its statutory obligations for planning application notification.

BF: Queried whether the bins store were adequate for rubbish and recycling for every dwelling, had been alarmed on planning view at the number of bins out in the road. Felt that highways should have commented, particularly given the issue of reversing out on to Swindon Road and queried whether they had been notified of the late representation received. He questioned whether all of the area in front of the garages would be built on. He also had concerns regarding parking and felt that people living in the centre of the town would still own cars. He had major concerns about people reversing out on to Swindon Road and suggested that the committee defer the application until further correspondence was had with the County Council as the authority responsible for highways and parking.

SW: Thought that reversing out on to a main road was a criminal offence and in his opinion 9 properties on one small plot of land was over development. He felt it unacceptable that the land presently used for turning would be built on and reasoned that whilst it was a good site for development the current scheme was unacceptable.

PM: Felt the scheme would cause a multitude of problems for residents, particularly with regards to parking. He also raised concerns about the face that tenants often didn’t pass on information regarding applications to landlords and as such, he did not feel the notification process was fit for purpose. He suggested that the loss of amenity by all of the residents of Normal Terrace be explored as reason  for refusal.

JP: Reasoned that  the design was imaginative and attractive but in the wrong location. He had concerns  about parking and implications for road safety and the obstructed visibility splay. He was further concerned that the Highways liaison officer had no objections to the application.

DB: queried what information officers had on visibility (traffic) and whether any studies had been conducted. Shared concerns about residents on Normal Terrace having to reverse out on to Swindon Road and the impact on their health and wellbeing as a result.

SC: Reasoned that Cheltenham needed the additional 9 dwellings, however, they clearly needed to consider the balance versus effect. Despite the fact it was in a central location, he highlighted that a third of people commute out of town and that the development could see a considerable increase in the number of cars in the road. He also felt that the provisions for bikes and bin storage was inadequate.

JS in response:

-       In response to concerns about residents parking permits he reasoned that that there was never going to be enough road space for 2 cars per household and it was not for this development to address the existing parking issues.

-       The two semi detached properties had access to the rear garden and so could store bins to the side or the rear.

-       He agreed that the bin store allocation for the flats was small, however, there was a lot of residual space for bikes and bins.

-       With regards to the visibility on to Swindon Road, the demolition of the existing build and the construction of new building would be set back slightly from Swindon Road and so there would be minimal change to the visibility.

-       He confirmed that the area currently used as a turning area is private land and so is only used informally as a turning area. He highlighted that there were other areas in Normal Terrace where people were able to turn their cars.

DO: Advised that the council has no parking or bike standards and so doesn’t require a certain amount of parking spaces to be provided on each site. He confirmed that the Highways Authority, who are the technical experts for highway matters, had no objections to the proposal and so the committee should be cautious in pursuing highways safety and parking as a reason for refusal. He reiterated that the area currently used for parking is private land and so the committee should also be cautious of using that as a reason for refusal. 

PM: With regards to residents  concerns he felt that they were in danger of breaching Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, due to the increase in stress that the development would cause to the current residents of Normal Terrace. He also felt that piling more cars in to the street to the detriment of local residents would results in loss of amenity. He also moved to refuse on the grounds of CP4 and SD14.

DO: Advised that he did not believe Article 8 was relevant and could set a dangerous precedent for the council to think of development in that context. He suggested that if they minded to refuse they should focus on the local plan and intentions of that plan.

BF: Had concerns about refusal and proposed deferral until further correspondence with the highways specialist  on the obstructed visibility splay and parking concerns.

PB: Agreed that the response from the highways authority was inadequate and agreed with proposal for deferral. He requested more meaningful engagement with highways  and suggested they be in attendance at next meeting when the item was to be discussed further.

Vote on proposal to defer

11 in favour

1 abstention

APPLICATION DEFERRED