Agenda item

Planning application documents

Councillor Foster left the chamber.

The planning officer introduced the report as published.

There were three public speakers on this item, the agent on behalf of the applicant and two ward members.

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

-       Addressing the committee on behalf of the two applicants of the scheme and not the appellants.

-       As set out in the officer report the process undertaken leading to the meeting today has been highly collaborative. The applicants have responded positively and constructively to the recommendations made by planning officers throughout the 15 months pre application and determination period. This Included the requirement for a section 73 application to clarify the wording of a condition on the outline permission.

-       Further evidence was provided to justify the proposed layout and access configuration and explanation was given as to why alternative engineering options that were tested and rejected during the design process are unsuitable.

-       The proposed scheme is the result of thorough iterative design process that has taken place against the terms of an externally funded planning performance agreement between Vistry, Stonewater and the council.

-       The site is unusual in that it lies within the Cotswold national landscape and yet has an acknowledged suburban context provided by existing development which surrounds the site on three sides.

-       In granting outline permission the appeal inspector stated that the character of the site would permanently and fundamentally change becoming more typical of its suburban setting.

-       Key factors informing the original decision and design process that followed include the inspectors finding that the scheme will deliver 250 new homes including 100 affordable dwellings.

-       The highly challenging site topography requires a bespoke design and engineering solution that works harmoniously with the site. The processes described in the committee report demonstrate that these challenges have been addressed comprehensively and successfully.

-       From June 2023 onwards, the design team, planning officers and the highways authority engaged via the Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) process in a series of structured monthly meetings that examined all aspects of the proposed design process. The statement of engagement submitted with the application explains the core PPA meetings, associated topic focus and stakeholder meetings that supported the engagement strategy. The engagement tracker that describes the iterative process and provides a summary of actions across 11 topic areas in response to questions, challenges and revisions sought by planning officers. The tracker identifies 160 design iterations undertaken to revise and improve the scheme over the 4 month period to submission.

-       During the pre-application stage, the design team also met with the representatives of the parish council, local residents group and presented formally to the Gloucestershire design review panel and to members of the planning committee. Comments arising out of these meetings helped to inform the design process.

-       Further PPA meeting was held in November following responses from consultees on the application, this identified a minor series of revisions and clarifications recommended by officers to improve the scheme to which the design team responded positively to.

-       The Cotswold Conservation Board commended the proposals as high quality scheme that accords with the Cotswolds national landscape strategy and the national landscape management plan.

-       The councils urban design consultant had been engaged to provide dedicated advice throughout the pre-app and post app stages concluded that the proposals constitute a significant increase in quality over the more recently permitted housing schemes in the area.

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

-       The proposed plans fail the test that it will provide good quality housing for all and does not conflict with the councils environmental targets.

-       The council and highways must follow the Equality Act 2010. Section 149 defines the Public Sector Equality Duty. Key points for new developments include advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it and have due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity.

-       Given the long sections of steep gradients being proposed it was expected that there would be a legal opinion on Equality Act compliance.

-       Equality Act compliance appears to be an issue as building regulations say a wheelchair ramp can have maximum gradient of 1:15 for 5 metres and a maximum gradient of 1:12 for 2 metres. British standards explain that where a gradient is too steep or for too long, a wheelchair user or companion pushing the wheelchair may not have sufficient strength to use that slope. Control and braking are difficult on steep slopes. The proposed length of gradients of 1:15 and steeper are much longer than these distances and appear to be unsafe for wheelchair users. A more detailed explanation of how equality act compliance has been established is necessary to avoid exposure of the council to potential legal challenge.

-       In addition the proposed extended lengths of steep gradients do not comply with the council’s planning policies which require the prioritisation of sustainable transport methods to address the climate emergency declared by the council and its target of achieving net zero by 2030.

-       Climate change supplementary planning document states that all proposed developments are expected to support shifts towards the sustainable transport hierarchy which puts walking and cycling at the top. This proposed development will force people to drive rather than walk or cycle.

-       Prioritising sustainable transport is included in policy SD4 which includes that transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes. The proposed gradients of the site mean the only option will be for people to use their cars.

-       The manual for Gloucestershire streets includes that new developments should give priority to pedestrians and cyclists and that sites which have poor relationship to amenities, services, education and employment by active travel modes are unlikely to receive a positive recommendation.

-       Due to planning policy non-compliance and the S149 duty of the Equality Act means that this application should be refused.

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

-       Concerned by the implications of this development as they need to give due regard to the Equality Act 2010 and the councils commitment to net zero 2030.

-       The location of the site is up a steep hill on a narrow road, Harp Hill. It would seem unlikely that people will walk or cycle to site due to the distance and gradients involved. This will push people to use their cars along with the topography of the site.

-       The developers of the site assumed a household would have three cars each; for a development of 250 homes this would mean an extra 750 cars. This would contribute significantly to local pollution and have an impact on the net zero 2030 commitments as well as adding to traffic and congestion in the local area.

-       There doesn’t appear to be any provision for public transport and the nearest bus routes are down on Priors Road which is quite a distance from the development. There was therefore no evidence of attempting to meet sustainable transport requirements.

-       The development will be environmentally damaging due to pollution and contravening equality requirements. People with limited mobility and young children will not be able to access the development except by car.

-       Whilst the need for additional housing in Cheltenham was accepted, this was not the right location or development.

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

-       The highways officer confirmed that the roads would be adopted even though they could be block paving. Roads carrying through traffic tend to perform less well with block paving. However, cul-de-sacs with block paving without heavy goods vehicles seem to last longer than asphalt. The planning officer explained that there is a condition for subsequent approval of hard surfacing materials used for roads and discussions will be ongoing.

-       There is a condition which requires the submission and approval of details relating to the construction of retaining wall structures.

-       There will be 32 social rent properties, 38 affordable rent and 30 shared ownership properties.

-       Provisions for wheelchair users include two fully wheelchair accessible properties in the north east corner. There are approximately 80 affordable units which are level access. The wheelchair accessible properties are affordable units.

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

-       The applicant was complemented on their engagement with planning officers and members over the course of the application.

-       The development addresses climate emergency with water butts, permeable drives, no gas, solar panels and air source heat pumps. The provision of footpaths and the accessibility to cycleway and to the bottom footpath was welcomed.

-       A Member felt that this was an excellent scheme which will deliver 100 affordable homes. The development is on a slope and therefore inevitable to have gradients on it. Equality issues have been addressed by officers.

-       The biodiversity net gain and the landscaping of the site was welcomed.

-       It will provide significant housing for the town as we do not have 5 year housing supply. No development is without its issues and most have been mitigated.

-       Disappointment was expressed that the proposal was only have 32% social out of affordable housing.

The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit:

For: Unanimous