Agenda item

Planning Application Documents

The officer presented the application as set out in the report, with a recommendation to permit, subject to conditions.

Public Speaker, in objection

The neighbour began by saying that residents and businesses were in favour of development of the site, but 29 households had objected due to serious concerns about the impact of the proposal on their lives, mainly around parking:

-       Hamilton Street is short and narrow, with insufficient on-road parking for existing residents, who compete daily with staff and customers of the Six Ways businesses.  Despite campaigning, no solutions have been implemented, and a further 12 homes with no additional parking will exacerbate an already dire situation.  This point was raised in the highways report of 16 May, but the report of 05 August states that the plans are acceptable, given the sustainable location; 

-       most residents own cars, and with protected bin store access, there will be room for only six cars outside the development, in conflict with Gloucestershire County Council parking standards;

-       lack of spaces and very tight parking cause many issues, including the road being used as a rat run especially during rush hour; residents forced to park a considerable distance from their homes; dangerous and illegal parking and reversing; road blockages due to deliveries and unloading; and pavement parking which forces wheelchair and pushchair users and people with walking aids into the road. 12 extra households without parking provision will make the situation more difficult and dangerous for everyone.  

In addition, she said that:

-       neighbours regard the current application as overdevelopment, and not in keeping with the locality;

-       privacy will be severely impacted, particularly for residents of Oakland Street;

-       the proposal is contrary to the Local Plan, Supplementary Planning Document, and GCC Manual for Streets.

She ended by reiterating that residents are not opposed to redevelopment of the site but urge decision-makers to consider the severe highways issues and hold out for a  more suitable proposal that sits comfortably in the locality and limits negative impacts to create a safe, functioning, living environment for all. 

Questions

In response to Members’ questions, the officer confirmed that:

-       the second highways comment raised no objection, noting that drivers currently park on the highway and the proposal will not create a situation that doesn’t already exist.  The fact that drivers park over drop kerbs was not specifically addressed, and highways officers did not give any indication of where cars should be parked instead;

-       although the dropped kerbs may appear to be just low kerbs, they were assessed by highways officers and a traffic consultant as dropped kerbs; drivers should not park their cars across them, but the realistic situation is that they do already, and this will not change as a result of the proposed development;

-       the proposal provides 17 secure, integral cycle parking spaces for 12 apartments;

-       there is a regular bus service between Six Ways and the town centre;

-       she was unable to comment whether or not highways officers conducted a site visit when assessing the application;

-       it is not possible to include a condition removing the right of residents to apply for parking permits in the area.

Debate

A Member started the debate with the following comments:

-       although it can be argued that redevelopment of the original buildings is the best option for site, it could be done more sensitively, for example with fewer dwellings, more back bin storage and, critically, more consideration of highways issues;

-       highways comments do not match the reality of the site, and with no space provided for cars, and the parish council’s comments that the street is used as a rat run, the impact on traffic in the area will be immense, both during office hours and at night;

-       it is disappointing that the impact of this on wheelchair and pushchair users and other people with disabilities does not  appear to have been addressed in the report – the pavements will be impassable and not helped by the proposal;

-       the lack of affordable housing is also disappointing and a disservice to younger residents or anyone trying to get a foot on the property ladder.

For these reasons, the Member suggested that the decision should be deferred.  The Head of Planning said that the only planning reason for deferral is lack of sufficient information to make a decision, which isn’t the case here; it cannot be implemented simply because the committee doesn’t want to make the decision.

Another Member welcomed the proposal to redevelop the site, which would improve its appearance and provide homes, but  shared the disappointment with highway comments, saying that parking is already a huge problem for residents in the area and with no mitigation, the proposal will make matters muchworse.  She wasn’t happy with these aspects of the overall proposal but was concerned that deferral would achieve nothing.

The legal officer confirmed this, saying that disappointment with highways comments were not grounds for deferral.

In further comments, Members said:

-       the decision is clear cut – Members must weigh up the impact on the local environment and whether they are comfortable with parking issues against the desperate need for housing; deferral will make no difference;

-       a stronger transport assessment and further traffic consideration from the developer, justifying the highways response, would be helpful.  Substantial discussions between the applicant and officers must have taken place but there is no evidence of this in the planning documents or the report;

-       voting against the application on highways grounds or for a deferral will have the same effect: the applicant will be able to submit a revised scheme, taking Members’ comments into account;

-       Members should have all the information they need to make a decision, but in this case they don’t, which is why deferral is a better option – to allow the applicant to provide further information.

The Chair could see no reasons for deferring, which should always be a last resort. He agreed that officers will have already had extensive discussions with the applicant and have provided all the information they feel members need in the report.

Vote on move to defer

1 in support, 8 in objection

NOT CARRIED

The debate continued with the following comments from Members:

-       the layout suggests that the accommodation proposed is likely to be suitable for young people starting on or moving up the property ladder – a group of people who are currently suffering greatly in Cheltenham, with a shortage of suitable accommodation.  In view of the council’s stated aims to make more accommodation available, it would be bizarre if the planning committee rejected a good application  which will help the situation;

-       it is an exaggeration to say the traffic impact will be immense – people living here are quite likely to walk, cycle, or use the bus.  Members need to balance scare stories about traffic with the acute need for accommodation – it would not look good for the council if this scheme was to be rejected on highways grounds;

-       there are excellent public transport links, and we all need to move towards a culture where public transport is used more.  While sympathising with car owners already living in this location, would anyone with a car consider moving here, in view of the lack of parking?

-       the town needs more homes and this site needs to be redeveloped, but it is a fantasy to suggest that the proposal won’t have a significant impact, and we kid ourselves by calling it sustainable development.  There are better ways to provide affordable housing and more places for young people to live, without impacting on an existing neighbourhood.  We are a council of balance, we don’t have to maximise development of every site if the impact on the locality will be severe, and a rational, balanced approach to this application is needed.

The case officer returned to an earlier Member comment, saying that the application is accompanied by Transport Note 3, relating to the pre-app and previous scheme and providing details of discussions with highways officers referred to in the report.  She said the previous scheme was for seven new houses, and highways officers suggested at the pre-app stage that no additional parking was needed as the number of vehicles associated with the existing commercial use, if operational, was equivalent to what would be created by seven new dwellings.  She said the application moved forward with the conversion scheme on that basis, with the accommodation now proposed across the site expected to result in the same level of parking demand.  She said it would be difficult to show a severe impact on parking as a result of the scheme.

The Member apologised for not having noted the transport assessment and withdrew his previous comments.

A Member felt that there was a difference between seven houses and 12 apartments, and regretted the lack of reassurance that highways officers had actually visited the site to carry out their assessment, and the fact that a highways officer wasn’t present to answer questions on this highly emotional decision.  The Chair confirmed that highways officers had been invited to the meeting but were unavailable.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

6 in support, 1 in objection, 2 abstentions

PERMIT