Agenda item

Planning Application Documents

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report as published.

There was one public speaker on the item: an objector.

The objector addressed the Committee and made the following points:

-       Objecting for the following reasons: –

o   The validity of the application. The application refers to two catering units, a vintage horse box and a catering trailer but has only provided an image of one unit. Which unit is proposed is a material matter as if will affect how the site looks and functions within the conservation area. The application should not have been validated without this information. The application also lacks detail on what food will be served and how it will be prepared. The applicant posted a public comment after validation providing further information which was not revalidated or consulted upon. Yet, this information has been reflected in the planning assessment and underpins environmental health’s lack of objection. Why is a comment being relied upon when it is not part of the validated application pack?

o   Impartiality and independence. The council’s property services department identified Swindon Village Park as one of several sites it wished to commercialise through mobile trading opportunities. When the applicant responded to this initiative, the same department, who would ordinarily receive income from a license, provided a strongly supportive consultancy response. They described it as a “strategic enhancement that delivers measurable community and financial benefits” and emphasised the corporate plan and commercial return to the council. This response has also been featured prominently in the planning assessment. Why was such promotional language accepted in a planning context when the department providing stands to benefit commercially from the outcome? The tone and content of the response risks compromising the appearance of impartiality that the planning process depends upon.

o   Licensing and joined up governance. Any trading from council owned land also requires a street trading consent under the council’s own policy. That process normally includes consultation with planning, environmental health and highways. While there’s no legal requirement for the process to operate in reverse, good governance would expect planning to seek licensing’s view when the same issues overlap. Why has the recommendation been made without advice from the very team responsible for assessing whether trading at this location is safe or consistent with council policy?

o   Equality and fairness. The planning assessment states simply that the public sector equality duty has been met but provides no explanation as to how. There is no analysis on whether charging for refreshments in what has always been free community space might disadvantage those on low incomes. The law requires that due regard be given to these issues. Why was no equality assessment carried out before recommending approval? Swindon Village Park has always been a free and inclusive space where families can enjoy the same facilities regardless of income. Introducing a paid food outlet changes the balance and creates a commercial zone within what was a shared public amenity, effectively turning part of the park into a pay-to-participate area.

o   Even within the park this is the least suitable location – besides the play area and over a drain known to flood. It is next to St. Mary Godwin’s under fives playgroup and will cause the loss of two parking spaces. Why is it being placed in the most sensitive and heavily used corner of the site. 

-       This application is not just about a catering trailer. It is about the importance of process. Why should residents have confidence in a recommendation that relies on unvalidated information and internal advocacy from the landowning department? Given property services direct role in identifying and promoting this site, should they not properly have been treated as a co-applicant rather than as a consultee?

In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that:

-       The planning committee operates entirely separately from the council as a whole, so members of the planning committee are free to make a decision today based on the planning merits of the application. As is the case officer in reaching their recommendation.

-       The report does make reference to mention of a vintage horse box in the submission but this doesn’t form part of the application. It was included in the applicant’s statement as he also owns a vintage horse box. If at any time in the future this horse box was to become part of this venture a new application would need to be submitted. This application is only considering the catering trailer.

-       The trailer is a temporary structure that will be removed from the site every day, so it has not been necessary to look into detailed drainage matters.

-       As addressed in the officer report the trailer isn’t equipped with a deep fat fryer or similar. Food served will be cold snacks, tea, coffee and hot snacks in the line of bacon sandwiches. There will not be fried or cooked food prepared on the site.

-       Highways were consulted on the application and were aware of the objections raised. They were satisfied that it is not going to cause any issues in terms of highway safety.

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

-       Members were concerned about the parking spaces and the inability to reserve them, however that is not a consideration for the planning committee.

-       There are many free to use public spaces in Cheltenham where commercial ventures are present, but that continue to be free to use. For example, the space behind Cheltenham Town Hall and around Pittville Pump Room. The presence of a snack bar was not felt to make this a commercial space, and it was felt that this would be a useful addition to Swindon Village Park.

-       Concern was raised over the noise caused by the generator. It was highlighted that residents value Swindon Village Park as a tranquil area in a very busy part of Cheltenham. It was suggested that, if the application is granted, due consideration should be given to mitigating noise where possible.

-       It was also recommended that if the application be granted further engagement should be carried out with the parish council and applicant.

-       As people are already bringing coffees to the park with them, this should not add to litter around the site. Instead, it would be enhancing the site and making it more accessible for the people who want to use it.

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that environmental health had been consulted on the application in regards to noise and they  are happy with the anticipated noise from the generator and its impact on local residents and the locality in general.

The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit the application.

For: 8

Against: 0

Abstain: 1

Voted to grant the application.