Agenda item

Planning application documents

The planning officer introduced the report.

There were 3 public speakers on the application one objector and two ward councillors.

The public speaker in objection made the following points:

-       Site gradients are not just an issue for vehicles, they are also and issue for cyclists and the elderly.

-       56% of the access road is of an unreasonable gradient this does not assist Cheltenham with the Net Zero Policy as the road will be steep people will have to use a car.

-       At the appeal the inspector stated that it is a balancing exercise as it is acknowledged that Cheltenham needs more homes but needs to be fair to all.  The application needs to be safe and permeable and it was shown to be safe at appeal which the applicant disputes.

-       With regard to Condition 13 there needed to be the removal of perceived ambiguity, it has been made clear and unambiguous which should be sufficient.

-       The condition should be aligned with the Manual for Gloucestershire Streets.  There is lack of clarity in the new condition wording with regard to safety.

-       To quote the inspector “the requirement of the condition is fundamental” and without this the application should be refused.

-       National planning was only approved under strict conditions.

-       There is no ambiguity in the original condition.

Councillor Chidley as the Ward Councillor addressed the committee and made the following comments:

-       To recap, the original application was rejected by the Cheltenham Borough Council Planning committee, however the inspectorate made a different decision.

-       The residents of Battledown want the application to be the best it can be.

-       The Council must be diligent, the gradient is too steep as the parameters are between 1/20-1/12 for up to 30 meters.  This is not acceptable.

-       A gradient of 1/12 is safe for wheelchair users with assistance.

-       On the current plans 56% of the application is at a higher gradient than that.

-       The access to the bungalows is too steep to get up a ramp (and indeed get a ramp installed) let alone get into the property.

-       The steepness of the gradient will make people take to their cars rather than walk.

-       The development that has been suggested will damage trees.

-       The wording of the condition must remain as it is, the applicant is the only person who finds it ambiguous.

Councillor Babbage as the Ward Councillor then addressed the committee and made the following comments:

-       The site is well known to many.

-       Outline permission has been granted which reluctantly has to be accepted.

-       The inspector imposed gradients for good reason, he reiterated that the gradient would be difficult for pedestrians and cyclists.

-       If the original application had all the information the committee may have made a different decision.

-       He urged the committee to reject the scare attempt from the applicant and reject the condition.

The matter then went to Member questions and the responses were as follows:

-       The officer suggested revised condition is not the words of the inspector, but it does tie in with the MfGS.  The Legal Officer explained that the discussion at the Inquiry was between the appellant and GCC, the current Condition 13 wording in the appeal letter is that of the  appeal Inspector and forms part of the appeal decision.

-       This is not a matter of if the Inspector is right or wrong, the law acknowledges that following a grant of planning permission some conditions may be changed or modified.  The wording of a condition can change.

-       CBC and GCC agreed with the Inspector with regard to condition 13, it was agreed that the gradients of up to 1/12 would be no longer than 30m in length.  The proposal is in line with the Manual for Gloucestershire Streets, however this document doesn’t specifically mention that gradients of between 1:20 and 1:12 cannot be longer than 30m.  The MfGS is silent on this matter.

-       The purpose of the proposal at the committee today is to decide if the modification is acceptable in planning terms or not.

-       The original applicant appealed against the Council’s non determination of the original outline application.  The application was allowed on appeal with conditions, the original applicant then sold the site.

-       The current reserved matters scheme was discussed with the Highway Authority at length and it was only at the latter stages of the discussions that the Highway Authority considered there was a conflict with the requirements of condition 13.  GCC are happy that the current reserved matters road design will be of adoptable standard and also with the revised condition imposed.

-       The suggested condition 13 wording is MfGS compliant.  The applicant will need to provide evidence of the need for any gradients between 1/20 and 1/12 which exceed 30 metres in length and it will then be for CBC to decide if these gradient lengths are necessary to protect trees, retained landscape features, the environment and neighbour amenity.  The planning officer stated that it may be a better scheme with the suggested condition.

-       It was suggested that if there were less than 250 properties built on the site that  it would unlikely change the road gradients.  If the variation is approved it will maximise the amount of housing.

-       Officers have been informed by the applicant and highways that there is only one way that the road can traverse the site. 

-       The Head of Development Management confirmed that the condition was necessary to meet planning requirements.  Legislation allows for the condition to be amended and if the committee refuses to consider the amendment because, for example, they believe the original condition is better, and thereby refuse the application it will be undefendable at appeal.

-       It was confirmed that if the committee didn’t agree with the proposal the application would revert to the original condition.

-       The current reserved matters application has not been changed in response to this application, however, it was realised late on in the reserved matters conversations that the design of the roads was a problem in satisfying the requirements of original condition 13.  The Head of Development Management reiterated that the committee needed to determine if the variation was acceptable in planning terms.

-       The planning officer explained that there will be an opportunity to address issues of landscaping, design, appearance, layout, access arrangements and engineering works later on in the process.  Condition 13 variation is the only matter before the committee at the moment. The officer stated that if refused it would be largely undefendable at appeal.

-       The Legal Officer again reiterated that as condition 13 complied with the MfGS there will need to be robust planning grounds to refuse the application.

-       Road gradients will be considered under reserved matters and not at that stage.

-       The applicant needs to provide evidence as to why the gradients would need to be increased and the planning officer would need to be satisfied that any increase in gradients is necessary. 

-       The planning officer stated that the revised wording would give extra clarity and security for the Council at the reserved matters stage.

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

-       Aware that the application is an outline permission that at the moment does not affect the 5 year housing supply.

-       The gradient is a huge concern, although there was acceptance that housing is needed on Harp Hill.

-       There are clear indications that to go against the recommendation would be undefensible at appeal and it would be a mistake for the committee to vote against the proposal.

-       With the gradient at 1:12 it is accepted that people will have to be pushed in a wheelchair.

-       The highways officer pointed out that the MfGS is stricter that the national guidance with regard to gradients.

-       Any consultee can make suggestions to change a condition.  GCC could make stipulations as to what they want.

-       The Chair then reminded Members that there has to be a planning reason to refuse the application.

The matter then went to the vote to permit:

For: 10

Against:  1