Agenda item

Planning application documents

The planning officer introduced the report as published.

Public speaking

The Resident in objection made the following points:

- Residents do not object to the redevelopment of the site or the co-op relocating there.

- The objection relates to the current plan and proposed buildings, size, mass and scale. It is an overdevelopment of the site and out of character for the area.

- The concern is primarily about the impact the development will have on traffic, parking and safety of pedestrians.

- Although the scheme has been revised to reduce the height, the building still remains too large and overbearing and has little relationship to the surrounding area.

-The developer has missed an opportunity to design a group of buildings that would enhance the plot and local area.

The Agent on behalf of the applicant made the following points:

- The applicant has made changes to the scheme following a public consultation exercise, by making amendments to the building including changing the facing material and reducing its height.

- The layout and landscaping for the site has also been improved.

- The development makes effective use of the site by providing housing and improving the offer of the convenience store, along with parking and well considered arrangements for deliveries.

- Technical consultants are fully supportive of the scheme with no objections raised in relation to environmental health or highway safety.

Councillor Horwood as Ward Councillor made the following points:

- The proposal has 30 objections and 30 in support. There is overwhelming support for co-op to move to new site.

- A positive is that the site is providing 14 new dwellings, 12 of them relatively affordable by Leckhampton standards, there will be biodiversity net gain and the incorporation of renewable energy.

- The site does tackle many of the issues of the current site of the Co-op, such as the delivery bay being separate from the car park and the pedestrian access being separate from both the car park and delivery bay access. Also, the buildings will be further from neighbours’ properties than the current garage buildings due to the separation by the car park.

- There are draw backs - the design as is really is not attractive although the applicant has modified it somewhat.

- It is a shame that there isn’t enough parking for one space per flat. The objections are really about scale and mass of the development.

- On balance he requested Members to support the application for the following three reasons:

-          Benefit over the existing co-op site.

-          Overwhelming support in the wider community of Leckhampton for change

-          We have to accept more intensive development within the town to offset being able to maintain green fields.

The democratic services officer read out the Parish council’s objection which made the following points:

-          Scale, mass, height and overdevelopment of the site. Creates a building out of character with its surroundings as well as privacy issues for residents who will be overlooked.

-          There is a lack of parking for both the dwellings and the shop. The street parking in Pilley Lane is already chaotic.

-          Concerns that the junction of Pilley Lane and Leckhampton Road will become busier and impacting safety and air quality. The predicted increase in two-way journeys during morning and evening rush hour will cause additional congestion, also impacting safety and air quality.

Response to members’ questions:

-          Highways recommended a condition of how the delivery bay will be used and trust that the applicant will stop people from using the delivery bay for parking.

-          Condition 24 relates to hours of opening and deliveries.  The planning department do not know how the store will be laid out or what the store will provide.

-          The site will have biodiversity net gain. Legislation Environment Act provisions come in to effect in November this year for major sites, which this site may not necessarily fall within. However, local authorities are awaiting guidance of the implementation of the provisions. In terms of minor sites, it will come in next April.

-          Planning is not able to attach any conditions to prevent the new apartments (which will be privately owned) from becoming Airbnbs as we do not have any control over properties being used in this way at any location.

-          Highways are satisfied that both junctions,  Pilley Lane with Leckhampton Road and Pilley Lane with Old Bath Road have sufficient visibility for vehicles at the approach for both junctions there is still stopping sight distance for vehicles. The application does confirm that there will be a maximum of five deliveries per day and they will range in vehicle size from vans to heavy goods vehicles.

-          The Co-op are not the applicant, but would be the occupier of the retail store. Planning do not know who the owner of the flats will be as they may be in separate ownership. A management plan for the flats is not something which s required.

-          Highways deemed that on balance request for any amendments on the existing infrastructure on the network failed the test of necessity as they are satisfied that both junctions can operate safely.

-          Highways is satisfied with the assessment that was carried out with regards to traffic movement.

-          There is no lift for the apartments.

-          The existing floor space of the buildings is offset against the residential floor space proposed resulting in planning being unable to seek affordable housing.

-          Transport statement applicant did state that deliveries will be made through Leckhampton Road, and the egress would be made onto Old Bath Road.

-          Planning do not think it would be appropriate to limit the size of the vehicles considering the previous use of the site.

-          Any Section 106 needs to be tested, related directly to the development and reasonably related in scale. Highways deemed that the site did not meet those tests to require mitigation, therefore none were requested.

-          It would be difficult to enforce a condition for a restriction for deliveries not being made during school times.

Member Debate

In debate, Members made the following comments:

-          The existing site is a problem for traffic, they do have concerns as there will be consequences for the local community but the overall the benefits outweigh the problems.

-          Not sure the traffic will create much of a problem as this is a new site.

-          There are other buildings near to the site which are similar in scale, if not larger.

-          There were concerns about traffic, parking and road safety issues and think that Gloucestershire County Council and CBC need to work together to improve road safety in the area.

-          There were also concerns of overlooking from residents is about a feeling of being overlooked rather than actual reality.

-          Given that we need a five year supply of housing and Cheltenham only has 1.7 years, we need these 14 properties.

-          Will support scheme as it’s a good scheme but concerned more flats being built without lifts.

-          Will support the scheme but thinks the applicant could have reduced the height of the scheme, also regrettable that there are no affordable homes in the scheme. Accepts it will be a positive contribution to the wider area.

Vote on proposal to have an additional condition that construction and deliveries will not happen between arrival and departure times for schools.

Carried

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

9 in support - Unanimous