Agenda item

Planning application documents

The Head of Planning introduced the report as published.

The public speaker in objection addressed the committee and made the following points:

- The proposed four storey building is in close proximity to Honeybourne Gate will have a significant detrimental impact on the apartments which face the site.

- As there are many housebound people in Honeybourne Gate looking out of their windows is the only way that they can engage with the outside world and this application will have a huge impact on them.

- There is no car parking facility on the application site. The regulations state that where parking is not provided within the curtilage the approach route should be safe for everyone including older and disabled people.

- The lack of parking makes the proposed apartments almost uninhabitable for older and disabled people.

- The proposal would be out of keeping with the conservation area and have a detrimental impact on the setting of the Grade 2 listed St Marys Cemetery Chapel.

- There is a need for more housing in the area and a much reduced development on this site would be acceptable.

The agent on behalf of the applicant addressed the committee and made the following points:

- This is a brownfield site.

- The committee has granted permission on a previous site that was smaller than the proposal.

- The effect on the view for Honeybourne Gate is not a reason to refuse the application.

- The agent has conducted additional surveys due to highways demand.

- Highways have made the conclusion that there would not be an impact on safety.

- Redevelopment of a redundant brownfield site is surely preferable over greenfield sites.

Councillor Willingham as a local ward member was then asked to address the committee and made the following points:

- He wished to raise several procedural issues Policy SD12 point 9 of the JCS the viability report has not been made available for scrutiny.

- There has also been no Human Rights Act consideration, the authority is also a potential beneficiary as the committee owns part of the land and granted permission for the billboard. If objectors ask questions this is not good optics for the Council.

- The Council has failed in due regard to the Grampian condition.

- The situation regarding parking cannot be sorted due to a difference of opinion between Gloucestershire County Council and Cheltenham Borough Council.

- Changing the parking zone to zone 12 will cost public money, the developer should be asked to pay for this rather than the County Council.

- This building will block the view of St Marys, this application is such a mess.

- Parking is a huge issue the area is currently over subscribed by approximately 400%, he reiterated that the developer should be made to pay.

- There is a danger that people will try and reverse onto a B road which could cause accidents.

- The parking survey was done when the students were on holiday, which does not give an accurate illustration of the area.

- He believed that the application should be refused or deferred.

Councillor Atherstone as local ward member then addressed the committee and made the following points:

- She stated that she was excited initially when she heard about the proposal, but the developer is not meeting the requirements of affordable housing and parking.

- One parking survey on one evening is not a sufficient representation of the area.

- The developer has suggested that this should be a car free development.

- Parking zone 12 is over subscribed. There could be harm arising for the increasing need for parking.

- The developer cannot make it viable to provide any affordable housing when there should be 40% affordable housing on the site.

- This development is an over development of the site and the loss of amenity for the residents of Honeybourne Gate is a concern.

- The front block is so close to the pavement and close to the bridge on the Honeybourne Line.

- There are empty retail units near the application that are in close proximity to the proposed site that would be much more suitable.

The Head of Planning then made the following points:

- With regard to the viability appraisal the planning department will fully publish these going forward. On this application the confidential viability reports had been circulated to members of the planning committee.

- It is not the role of the planning committee to deal with the large hoarding.

The matter then went to Member Questions. The responses were as follows:

- There is no car access to any of the blocks, there is only pedestrian access.

- The developer has not considered leaving more space at the front for delivery or a pull in bay.

- The trees outside of the site are in a bad state and they are not covered by a TPO.

- Parking zone 12 is the most convenient, however it has been recommended that the residents of this property will be precluded from obtaining parking permits.

- A small part of the site is under council ownership, however this is not a planning concern.

- The footpath is generally 1.8 meters away from the highway.

- There is secure storage for 18 bikes on the ground floor of block A.

- This application pre dates the bio diversity net gain policy, although there could be limited landscaping within the site.

- It could not be confirmed that there will be any gas on the site.

- There is nothing in the application with regard to netting against seagulls, however this could be imposed as a condition by the committee.

The matter then went to Member debate where the following points were raised:

- This is a difficult decision to make as there are highway issues with no pull in for bin lorries or deliveries.

- The building is ugly and the flats will be on the open market which means some of them will become Airbnb  and people who visit them usually have a vehicle.

- Letting developers build flats where furniture cannot be moved in without causing a problem.

- Parking is a major issue and looking at the plans it would not have been impossible to design a drop off spot.

- The design of the block is not accessible.

- The Council does not have a 5 year housing supply and highways have approved the application, the committee needs planning grounds to refuse the application as an appeal could be costly.

- The application site will be overdeveloped and the application could have been designed with a drop off spot.

- It is not the first car free development – as long as the seller is honest and open about the new owners not being able to buy a permit it should not be a problem.

- The lack of affordable housing is an issue, the independent assessment didn’t deem it viable to have affordable housing.

- Road safety is a real concern.

The matter went to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit subject to unilateral undertaking:

For: 5

Against : 6

The committee then discussed the grounds for refusal and identified highway safety and amenity with conflict with policies SD4 and SD14 of the Development Plan.

The Chair acknowledged these reasons to which there was no dissent