Agenda item

Officer introduction

MP introduced the outline application for redevelopment of the former Monkscroft School, providing up to 60 dwellings, including 40% affordable units. The site is allocated in the emerging Cheltenham Plan for up to 60 dwellings, and the application is at committee because GCC is the applicant.   Proposed access is via Shelley Road  - this is the only fixed aspect, with all else to be considered  under reserved matters, should be principle be considered acceptable.  Gloucestershire Highways have not raised any objection to the proposed access point, but there are concerns from local residents regarding parking and highways safety.  Only the principle of development and access points are being considered today – an illustrative masterplan has been submitted to show what the site can accommodate, but this is only indicative.  The recommendation is to permit, subject to an S106 agreement concerning education and affordable housing, and to conditions as set out in the report.

 

Public speaking

 

Alice Shield, on behalf of local residents, in objection

There has been unanimous objection from local residents and a 48-person petition.  Poets Corner was designed in the 1920s, and the impact on the character of the area from having a modern estate placed within the period-style Poets Corner would be huge. The small residential streets are already overloaded with traffic, and will be brought to a state of gridlock.  Shelley Road to Princess Elizabeth Way is already extremely congested with nose-to-tail parking in every possible space, and sometimes dangerous queuing on PE Way.  Traffic can’t turn right here in front of oncoming traffic, so a potential 100 extra cars will cause utter congestion.  Regarding the impact on neighbouring properties, the heavy traffic on PE Way means most cars cut the corner off and use Tennyson Road instead as a shortcut race-track to access virtually all other areas of Cheltenham.  New residents would sure do the same, which would be an unreasonable burden for Tennyson Road.  Shelley Road enters Tennyson Road at an extremely dangerous bend, which is blind from Tennyson Road meaning vehicles are often in the middle of the road. Tennyson Road is a small residential road but is already carrying main-road quantities of traffic, using the short cut route to avoid Gloucester road.  Speed bumps are not working at slowing down the traffic, and the impacting of them actually shakes the infrastructure – doors, windows, mortar around windows, even furniture.  These period properties are not designed to withstand this, and the noise of the lorries hitting the bumps is unbearable.  Crossing the road is dangerous, due to bends in the road and speeding traffic, and with more cars, deliveries etc.  If the plan is approved, residents request that the developers or council pays for 20mph speed restriction and 7.5 tonne weight restriction on Tennyson Road, or some other effective traffic-calming method.  

 

Mark Campbell, agent, in support

Is speaking as principle planner at Evans Jones, in support of this outline application for 60 dwellings, with all matters other than access reserved.  The officer report sets out matters to be considered, and the officer recommendation is to approve subject to an S106 agreement.  The site in the principle urban area, and also allocated in the emerging Local Plan, for 60 dwellings, with policy-compliant affordable housing.  The appearance, layout, scale and landscaping are not for consideration tonight – just the principle and access. An

illustrative arrangement is provided to show that 60 dwellings can be accommodated with parking, open space, drainage etc.  The access arrangements are considered suitable, after being explored at public consultation.  Hopes that the outline proposal will be permitted, enabling the applicants to work quickly and bring forward much-needed market and affordable housing.

 

Councillor Holliday, in objection

Is here to pass on views of residents, made both during and after conversations with GCC officers, who refused to budge.  Is deeply unhappy with the application, and unhappy that residents’ views put forward at the consultation evening in June 2016 have been disregarded.  GCC should demonstrate willingness to share and take on views but not in this case.  Is dissatisfied with the density, and that the request for access from Shakespeare Road has been ignored.  There will be a massive impact on both Shakespeare and Shelley Roads from this scale of development.  It has clearly been designed for maximum commercial value, and residents who have lived here for many years, know the area, know the problems, and have a right to be heard.  On behalf of residents, would ask Members to think carefully about the proposal, consider reducing the number of properties from 60  Fewer cars would mean less pollution, less volume of vehicles in area, fewer on-street parking problems.  Inclusion of a further access from Shakespeare Road would reduce the traffic burden, and hedge, for example, could be introduced to prevent rat running.

 

Member debate

SW:  can an officer explain the difference between social rented and affordable rented housing?

 

DO, in response: 

-       social rented housing is 60% of market rent, affordable rented is 80% of market rent.

 

SW:  accepts the principle of building on this land, and that Cheltenham cannot ignore this site under its obligation to build a lot of houses as part of the JCS.  Has some points to make about access, but is really concerned that, as with most new estates, there are no footpaths.  This area, like many in Springbank ward, will be used for excess parking – inevitably there will be cars parked here, belonging to residents or others.  On an estate where footpaths are in fact the end of people’s gardens - shared space – inevitably children, mums with pushchairs, the elderly, will all end up walking down the middle of the road.  This is not acceptable   Realises we are not talking about the actual design today, but would like the developer to take this on board, and include footpaths in the final plan.

 

DB:  is quite torn here – we do need more houses, particularly in this area, but can see problems arising from parking and traffic congestion.  There could be 120 or more cars with only one access.  Realises this is all to be agreed, but feels uneasy.

 

MC:  is torn too.  Supports DB and agrees that Cheltenham needs houses.  It is ironic that County Highways officers originally objected to the proposal, then changed their mind.  Cheltenham needs houses, but CBC has acknowledged the climate emergency and aims to be carbon neutral by 2030, yet is still talking about accommodating cars, which are a huge problem here already, with long waits for traffic during busy times a fact.  Doesn’t know what solution is, but we need to be more creative, and look at alternatives instead of basing developments on how to accommodate cars.  Regarding access and double yellow lines, has been working with county highways officers in his own ward on a similar junction – non-residents park there, blocking the narrow access road, making it difficult for  refuse/delivery/emergency vehicles, and forcing traffic into the estate into the middle of the road onto the other carriageway.  The proposed double yellow lines here don’t extend far enough into access road  to make the junction safe.  We need to be clever and think more about how to accommodate much-needed housing without concentrating on how to deal with the vehicles it generates  This comes up at every planning meeting, and something needs to be done about it.

 

PB:  has a lot of sympathy with residents, whose homes have backed onto a school playing field for many years, but we have to accept that land in Cheltenham is finite, with hundreds of people on the property waiting list so we have to take up this housing opportunity.  Agrees with MC that the main Issue is that the highways solutions are rubbish and will be a nightmare for residents.  Regarding access, it is unfair to expect one road to take all the traffic from the estate, and surely not beyond the wit of highways officers to realise that two sensible accesses – at Shelley Road and Shakespeare Road – can be achieved, keeping the same number of houses and sharing the load.  There has been a consultation but the outcomes are being ignored, creating this untenable situation.   The shape of the land allows for dividing the estate in two.  The highways officer is present, and should explain why it is not possible to redesign the plan with two accesses from two roads.

 

KS:  was going to say what PB has just said, and supports his comments.  Intuitively, looking at the site plan and the character of area around, there are many cul-de-sacs, and it would therefore be in keeping with the area if two cul-de-sacs were created, one off Shelley and one off Shakespeare Road; it may mean losing one or two houses, but  this would be both viable and sustainable.  Need to create homes which are nice to live in.  Is minded to not support the proposal and ask the County to come back with an application with two cul-de-sacs and a reduced number of homes.  Also, notes on the blue update that school places are challenging and there will not be enough senior places in two years’ time.  Would be sorry if S106 contributions weren’t expected, and does not understand Point 1.2  - does this mean contributions are not needed or that they will be provided through CIL?

 

CM,  in response: 

-       understands local concern regarding access, and highways officers originally issued a refusal on the County Council’s own application, considering the road lay-out not good enough, as it made access narrower, didn’t respond to traffic, and did nothing to calm the street.  It could be said that the some of the existing residential streets don’t have as good access as what is proposed, but acceptance of what has gone before is not a good way to plan. Planning needs to keep things moving as well as possible. Highways officers therefore pushed for a better junction with the applicant, allowing refuse vehicle access and vehicles to enter and egress without interference, but not trying to be vehicle dominant;

-       regarding the double yellow lines, members will notice that the drawing shows no bar at the end – this is because full extent is not agreed yet.  Highways officers pushed for some form of double yellow lines to protect movement of access – the new development of 60 dwellings will be mitigating its own impact, and protecting access in a way other streets in the area aren’t;

-       cannot comment on members’ preference for more than one access, as only one has been presented and it is considered safe, suitable and reasonable by highways officers; another round of consultation will be needed to change this;

-       regarding other matters, highways officers have secured a robust list of conditions, including a construction management plan, which will be a big element if the proposal is approved; travel plan to promote sustainable travel;

-       regarding the council’s objectives and targets for sustainable travel, is with members here, but while highways officers won’t continue to encourage car ownership, they can’t stop people wanting them, and have suggested conditions to support sustainable the agenda and work towards that ambition.  If yellow lines are extended further into site, they will need to be secured within the application and be resilient to the test, should the test come;

-       it should be remembered that highways officers have not accepted anything apart from one drawing concerning road lay-out – all other matters will need to be agreed at the reserved matters stage.

 

BF:  it is difficult to give full consideration to this proposal as the application is very basic – just an outline for 60 dwellings, without information about configuration, number of car spaces, number of bedrooms – just confirmation that affordable housing will be provided, with all else reserved.  Members have two choices:  the highways officer has commented on the plan as presented to them by the agent for the county council and they have had to work on that.  If Members aren’t happy, they could refuse on highways grounds, with the request that the applicants look at a double entrance, or they could defer and the applicants to look again at the access.  Asked about density on Planning View – it is quite low by 21^st century standards, and the road system in the area is generally good.  However the Poets area was built in the early 20^th century when there were not so many vehicles on the roads; the reality now is that there are many vehicles and people need them.  The majority of Members will agree the principle, and as time is not the essence – the proposal is unlikely to be built for five years or so - may propose deferral for a double entrance to be considered, to ensure the proposal is right in the early stages.

 

SC:  there is much to like about this development – new dwellings, social housing etc – but the  problem is with 60 dwellings, that there will inevitably be cars, probably 1-2 per house.  We need to consider its impact on the neighbourhood over the next 20 years.  Visited the site by bike on Tuesday and was astonished by how jammed the adjacent roads were, with cars up to the junction, and vehicles negotiating their route back and forth – on a Tuesday afternoon!   If 60 dwellings could mean 120 cars,  why not divide the site into two, with no join in the middle – this would be a better solution.  Agrees with BF – it would be better if the proposal was brought back with two halves to mitigate the traffic impact.  Apart from this, likes the footpath permeability on both sides for bikes and walking, and hopes to see more of this in future, but is disappointed that there is only provision for one cycle space per household – it should be more, even if it means giving up a car space.

 

NJ, in response: 

-       to KS, regarding the blue update, we would ordinarily expect education contributions to be covered by CIL.  In this case, the county council has requested an additional contribution from S016.  Conversations are on-going as to how fair and reasonable this is, and the outcome is dependent on discussions taking place internally.

 

GB:  would remind everyone  that, as a planning committee, Members are not here to redesign on the hoof.  Rather than deferral, if they not happy with the proposal, they should refuse it.  This is a better approach, as officers and the agent have heard what’s been said and will take it into consideration.

 

PB:  the agent may hear what Members are saying, but if the proposal is permitted, that is what we will get.  Members are here to do their best for Cheltenham residents, both existing and future, and it is clear that the proposal would be better with two accesses.  The current proposal is purely a valuation exercise, and the site will be sold,  hopefully to CBH. We must work together and defer;  if that’s not going to happen, the outline should be refused – the applicant could do far better.

 

DO, in response: 

-       to summarise what Members have said, the highways officer has confirmed that the junction is designed to accommodate as many vehicles as required  The capacity of the road can handle the increase – 33 in the am peak, 30 in the pm peak;

-       the site allocated in the Local Plan for 60 houses – the council has accepted that is about the right number.  Planning Committee is not here to fix the existing problems on highways network, and the applicant can’t be expected to do this.  Members should only be concerned with access and principle, and the highways expert has said it can and will work;

-       introducing two access points will take up more land – more to the road, less to housing – and Members need to factor this into the way they are thinking.  The council is aiming for less car use;  adding more road will not support this;

-       having heard  CM’s comments, is not sure on what traffic grounds the proposal can be refused.  County Highways consider that the road network can cope, as set out in the officer report, evidence, and tonight’s debate.

 

KS:  regarding yellow lines, residents and the highways officer all acknowledge it is a difficult situation .  Has campaigned locally for yellow lines to help people cross, keep roads clear etc, but once they are in place, they have made no difference as they are not enforced – local residents know they won’t get parking ticket and people still can’t get across the road.  How will it work here – has the County Council got capacity to enforce in one area?  It might be true that adding an extra junction may take away housing space, but we have to look at balance – it’s not about designing spaces for cars, but about designing spaces for how people live.  This isn’t the town centre and  people will need cars.  Time and time again, we are told that something is acceptable and will be managed – but this is not acceptable and will have a massive impact, both for those already living there and for people moving in.  There are a lot of cul-de-sacs in the area – at the time the houses were built, it was thought to be a desirable way to live, and it  works well.   If this development were to be two cul-de-sacs instead of one through-road, it would halve the number of cars, create smaller spaces more in keeping with the area, be better for children,  and lessen the impact on road system.  It seems to be a win-win situation.  Is not sure on the best way forward:  understands that there may not be grounds to refuse and that Planning Committee is not here to redesign, but Members want to create the spaces that the town deserves and approving this scheme won’t be doing that.

 

SW:  understands that this is an indicative design, and Members are being told that a second access would take away land for houses, but  looking at the Shelley Road access - – a couple of yards, a few trees, no houses – it would be so easy to put in another access without losing a single houses, and cannot see any harm in putting this in.    In Hester’s Way, Quebec and Montreal Drives are two cul-de-sacs which by-pass each other; they work beautifully and are wonderful communities, with one road in and one road out.  While Members are not here to redesign, another access is something specific, and cannot see it will be very expensive.  The highways officer has explained that the yellow lines can be extended as necessary – is happy with this.  Is still concerned about footpaths, but the Committee can give the developer a few red lines, comments, and suggestions of what they would like to see in the reserved matters application. Members will be missing a trick if they sit back – they have been caught like this before, agreeing to an outline, then being told nothing can be changed later as it is already agreed.  Members need to put down markers – for a second access, footpaths, and other things people are interested in, to show the applicant what will be looked for when they come forward with the full design.  And if CBH acquires the site, it will be wonderful.

 

BF:  the highways department has looked at the brief and designed to that.  It may be that the highways network will support the additional traffic but it will be at a price – there is always a price to pay, in frustration, general annoyance, quality of life etc.  The applicant can still get the volume of housing, but needs to make sure the impact is minimal on people there now and those living there in the future.  This is the message that will be taken back with a deferral or refusal – doesn’t mind which.

 

AH:  agrees that on paper there is no problem with site – the roads can take the traffic – but these are homes and communities, where people have to live and function day to day.  Members are not redesigning, but acting as a critical friend at an early stage of the process, and giving feedback, based on concerns from local residents.  Feels that a deferral would be appropriate at this stage.  If it is a straight yes or no, there has been no point in the debate.  Should use committee experience and expertise to feed back into the process.

 

CM, in response: 

-       Members’ comments are fair to an extent, but can provide some tried and tested numbers to back up the highways position;

-       a non-motorised user audit for the walking area for the area has shown it to be a good, usable highway;

-       regarding accessibility of local facilities, relying on two different ways of measuring - at a general walking speed of 1.4 metres per second, there is a pharmacy, college and surgery 5 minutes’ walk away, a nursery 7 minutes, a supermarket, library, play area and primary school 10 minutes’ walk  - so a lot of positives going for it;

-       evidence of car ownership in the St Marks area from the 2011 census, suggests car ownership as follows: 41% of households in the area with no car, 46% with one car, 10% with two cars, 1% with three cars, 0% with four cars, suggesting an additional 43 cars for the 60 proposed dwellings.  The lay-out has not been agreed yet, but in addition to a travel plan, a car park management plan would seem to be a reasonable condition to make sure the layout responded to car numbers in perpetuity;

-       regarding forecast trip generation, based on survey data from existing sites,  it is anticipated that this development would generate an additional 33 vehicle movements in the am peak, which will turn left or right to Shelley Road.  In highways capacity terms, this is de minimas re impact.  If there were two access points, with an equal split of dwellings, this would mean only 15 vehicle movements in the peak hour – one every four minutes;

-       finally, road and road construction is not environmentally friendly – the highways authority would like to build less and thinks it can do so in this instance, safely and suitably.

 

GB:  having heard this reasoned argument from the highways officer, feels that Members have come to the point where they need to make a decision.  There has been no indication of any proposals for deferral or refusal.

 

PB:  accepts that development of this site is do-able and to refuse it would be folly.  The two authorities need to talk to each other having heard tonight’s conversation, and come back with a better design.  Will sleep better knowing Members have done their best to get something better than what is proposed.

 

DO, in response: 

-       the danger is that officers can go away and negotiate but the County Council may say no.  This is their proposal  and there is zero evidence for refusal – the council may say take it back and make a decision;

-       alternatively, as the agent is here and has heard the debate, there is  nothing stopping the applicant from amending the  proposal to seek a second access – but this cannot be guaranteed;

-       as GB has said, the committee is not here to redesign, but they are elected representatives, so if that is what they want to do, so be it.  Officers can have the conversation but not guarantee a different outcome.

 

GB:  would like to bring the discussion to close with a decision.  Does PB want to propose deferral?

 

PB:  Planning Committee has deferred on many occasions in past, and the applicants have come back with better applications.  If the applicant was a commercial developer, may take a different view, but as it is a fellow authority, it would be poor if a discussion can’t be had.

 

KS:  regarding the two accesses, was trying to say that the way the development is laid out at the moment, it looks like it has been designed for cars coming through but it is not all about cars.  Urges the applicants to consider liability for people living there.

 

CM, in response: 

-       refuse collection and deliveries are also a consideration as well as residential access, as these must be able  to get within 30m of dwellings to meet standards.  Waste vehicles are 11m long and will need room to turn round in residential estates.

 

Vote on PB’s move to defer

13 in support

1 abstention

DEFERRED