Agenda item

Planning application documents

Councillor Clark left the chamber.

The Head of Development Management, Enforcement and Compliance introduced the report as published and explained that the reasons for the return of the application were in the report and that following legal advice no decision was formally made at March meeting and is back at committee for debate, reassessment and a formal decision.

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

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

-       These words are on behalf of residents of Honeybourne Gate. The application was refused in March and is back before the committee on a legal technicality.

-       Honeybourne Gate is exclusively occupied by older people, many that have limited mobility and spend most or all of their time in their apartments. Whilst residents are aware that there is no right to a view, the loss of amenity that will arise from being faced with a prison like four storey wall will be significant.

-       The proposed development will come right up to the edge of the pathway which is narrow at this point and the development is immediately adjacent to the bridge.

-       The professional advice regarding highway safety was disputed, since those that live at Honeybourne Gate witness near accidents every day on this stretch of High Street.

-       Highway and pedestrian safety will be compromised by this development as vehicles already pull onto the pathway when moving out of the way of oncoming emergency vehicles, there will be nowhere for pedestrians to move without the current loading bay. Additionally, delivery drivers park illegally on double yellow lines outside the front of the development so the hazard is even greater.

-       The residents accept the need for additional housing in Cheltenham and a much reduced development on this site would be acceptable. A development of this size into such a restricted site will significantly damage the street scene undoing much progress already made in the area.

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

-       The application is not back at committee to ratify the previous resolution rather a fresh consideration of the merits of the application.

-       The application involves redevelopment of a tired and redundant brownfield site at a location actively promoted for growth by the Council.

-       The government and this council support the needs to meet the need for housing identified through JCS area through the redevelopment of brownfield land and sustainable town centre location.

-       This committee has presided over many applications along the High Street and redevelopment of former commercial sites to provide much needed housing and which have been permitted. The site opposite was recently developed with a four storey high apartment block and this application has been designed to follow the scale of that building and is it not as high as Honeybourne Gate.

-       This application has been through a long process, the original pre app discussions took place in 2019 and the final scheme has been developed in line with officer advice. Design changes have been made throughout  the process as requested by officers to ensure the best possible scheme is achieved whilst retaining viability.

-       The scheme respects the local conservation area as outlined in the officer report and they have confirmed that there would be an acceptable level of impact on neighbours. All other policy criteria have also been met.

-       It has been demonstrated through a robust financial viability report that any development at this site with affordable housing is not viable. This has also been confirmed by an independent district valuer commissioned by the council. This scenario is specifically provided for in policy and is a legitimate position.

-       The scheme has been thoroughly tested by the local highway authority, with additional parking surveys in the neighbouring streets during evening hours, when they consider parking to be most in demand. These surveys confirmed that there is adequate parking in capacity terms.

-       The highway authority has concluded that there would not be a severe impact in highways safety terms and the conclusion is that the scheme is acceptable.

-       Clear advice previously given by the highway officer suggested that there would be no legitimate grounds for refusal in terms of lack of car parking given the opportunities for parking in the vicinity. Furthermore, the council was advised that the lack of a drop off bay would not form a deferrable reason, if that would be an issue in planning terms it would render all developments along the High Street as unacceptable as few benefit from this provision.

-       The development may not be to individual taste. The planning authority are required to determine the application in line with the expectations of the development plan.

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

-       Speaking on behalf of constituents at Honeybourne Gate, he asked the committee to refuse this application for the second time. It was refused 6 to 5 votes at March committee to do anything else would be undemocratic. Nothing has changed in the application.

-       The application is still unlawfully non-compliant with policy SPD12 and requires the publication of the viability report if affordable housing is not provided. This development provides none and no viability report has been published.

-       The council has a pecuniary interest as a landowner.

-       The aesthetics of the design were criticised at March committee with the block being compared to a prison block.

-       The residents of Honeybourne Gate are older and some have mobility issues and therefore spend more time in their homes. The design and visual amenity of the proposed development must be given more weight. The lack of residential amenity give robust grounds for refusal from policies SD4 and SD14.

-       The safety and practicalities of deliveries to the development for the top floor flats will be difficult due to the internal design and site layout.

-       The external layout will be problematic for deliveries and will cause severe traffic safety problems at a busy point near a congested junction on the High Street and Gloucester Road and close to a bridge which limits visibility.

-       Delivery vehicles stopping outside the development will obstruct the visibility of the only height restriction sign protecting the Honeybourne Line bridge over the High Street. This bridge is owned by CBC has been repeatedly damaged by bridge strikes.

-       If the development is permitted without the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) being changed it will cause highway danger due to the detrimental impact on parking in zone 12. Which planning documents show is 392% oversubscribed, allowing an extra 36 parking permits for this development will be dangerous with vehicles having to reverse out of cul-de-sacs onto Gloucester Road. Officers could have imposed a grampian condition to require the TRO to be varied before construction commences but didn’t, the committee can.

-       The committee should consider whether you would gift £15k out of public money to a developer out of a highways budget.

-       The parking survey was conducted on a Wednesday when the busiest day is a Friday. To fail to condition that the TRO should be changed before the development commences would be an insult to the tax payer of Gloucestershire.

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

-       The committee refused the application at March meeting.

-       She was initially excited by the development to provide much needed housing in the town. However, she was now disappointed that the developer will not be providing any affordable housing when up to 40% should be provided.

-       The developer suggestion that it should be car free was questioned given that, friends and family visit the residents.

-       There is no parking provision and inadequate availability of street parking in nearby streets. Parking zone 12 is significantly oversubscribed. One survey taken on one evening should not be accepted as enough evidence to base their assumptions on. It is hard to believe that only 0.5 car park spaces will be required per home.

-       The NPPF states that development should be prevented where there is an impact on highways safety. The County council’s comment that the harm arising from the increased demand for parking and inadequate availability of street parking is likely to affect the amenity of residents of the existing properties was highlighted as this would give rise to some road safety issues associated with drivers searching for parking spaces and having to reverse in narrow cul-de-sacs with no spaces found.

-       As the proposed development goes right up to the pavement deliveries to the development will pose a danger for road users and pedestrians as they will park on the pavement and block the road.

-       Honeybourne Gate residents are concerned with loss of privacy, visual impact of the development and general loss of residential amenity.

-       There were concerns about the safety of site during construction as the development is right up to the pavement, the two blocks are closely packed together and close to the Honeybourne Line and to the low bridge.

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

-       The application is to be considered and debated as a fresh application.

-       A Health Impact Assessment has not been carried out and would not be expected for an application of this scale.

-       The council owns a sliver of land alongside the Honeybourne Line within the red line of the application site. Land ownership is not a material planning consideration.

-       Condition 4 requires the submission of a construction management plan and is a normal requirement for a larger application particularly in a location such as this one. The Head of Development Management, Enforcement and Compliance is not concerned that the committee is imposing a condition that cannot be compiled with and it is for the applicant to provide the detail to satisfy the condition. The council would consult with the highways authority to discharge condition 4.

-       The highways officer said that there is survey information which shows that there is capacity in the permit areas of Bloomsbury Street, Stoneville Street, Market Street and Park Street. However, the highways officer does have concerns with Bloomsbury Street and Stoneville Street due to problems with the ability of vehicles to turn in those streets. That said, the applicant has sufficient evidence that were the application to be refused and go to appeal the applicant would be able to evidence that there is capacity for residents permits.

-       The highways officer is concerned about on street parking on the A4019  but does not think those concerns meet the threshold to refuse the development. The NPPF is referenced in the report and whilst there may be an impact on highways safety it would not be so great as to refuse the application.

-       The highways officer said that the original advice given to the planning officer was that the TRO should be amended. The document that the County Council uses states that the development should be excluded from having parking permits in oversubscribed areas. The applicant has argued that they are unable to pay the £15k cost for that variation to be made to the TRO. This does cause the officer concern that the public will pick up the cost. On the basis of the information we have received unable to recommend to refuse the application.

-       The highways officer confirmed that the parking zone does need to be reviewed regardless of this development. The officer was unable to guarantee to the committee that TRO would be amended in time to preclude the residents of the development applying for parking permits.

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

-       A Member spoke against this development due to highways safety for four reasons:- firstly that a loading bay should have been considered; secondly that unlike other properties along the High Street, this development would not have access to slip roads or nearby roads; thirdly due to concerns that emergency services vehicles would not be able to access block B and finally it was felt that there was a flaw in the report as the following paragraphs 108e, 113b, and 116d  from NPPF referring to highway safety have not been considered. When considering NPPF holistically this development should be refused on the basis of highways safety.

-       The front of the development is no waiting which means that no vehicles should stop there unless it is due to traffic. Waste and delivery vehicles would stop outside the development.

-       The whole development could be redesigned to keep part of a bay at the front available for drop off to allow for  deliveries and waste vehicles. This is a dangerous area with the bridge and approaching the traffic lights, without drop off area it is difficult to see how there would not be highway grounds for refusal.

-       The NPPF paragraphs were considered as part of the application as they were listed as policies relevant to the application. The highways officer is GCC transport adviser and whilst members may disagree, the committee need to be guided by their advice.

-       Fire issues are the responsibility of building regulations not a planning consideration.

-       There was a need to maximise the use of finite sites in our town for much needed housing. This development is next to the cycle path, on a bus route and not far from the train station.

-       This is a difficult site and there was a loss of amenity when Honeybourne Gate was built to Stoneville Street. There will be loss of view. However, that is not a planning consideration.

-       The highways officer confirmed that paragraph 140b that safe and suitable access can be achieved was applied to all users.

-       Not against development at this site although without a drop off point struggle to find development acceptable. The development will not be accessible to all as it will not be for waste vehicles and deliveries it is only accessible by foot.

-       The Head of Development Management, Enforcement and Compliance clarified that if Members are minded to refuse they need to consider what the impact would be of not having a drop off bay. In terms of policy it would be highways safety issue or the impact on the network issue due to additional congestion.

-       The Head of Development Management, Enforcement and Compliance said that a deferral on the grounds of exploring compulsory purchase of neighbouring properties would be unreasonable and the committee need to assess the application before them.

-       The legal officer clarified that compulsory purchase is a separate regime from planning and is not a material planning consideration.

-       The highways officer said that the development could have a drop off area but that it wasn’t considered necessary to make the development acceptable.

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

For: 5

Against: 3