Agenda item

 

Application Number:			13/00106/FUL
Location:	Travis Perkins, Gloucester Road, Cheltenham
Proposal:	Erection of 107 dwellings (class C3) including access and servicing arrangements, car parking, landscaping and associated works
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit
Committee Decision:			Permit
Letters of Rep:		19	Update Report:		Recommendation to remove Condition 18

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Simon Hoare, on behalf of the applicant, in support

Thanked Members for their vote in support of the previous application, saying that in order to implement it, Travis Perkins needed to secure permission on this application.  Regarding highway safety, said that there were no objections from the county council, and that existing traffic in and out of the site in its current use had been measured against predicted residential use, and shown that there would be 50% fewer traffic movements per day.  Local residents considered houses to be a more conducive use of the site.  The developer had considered whether it was viable to install a roundabout or traffic lights but with only 107 homes and 50% fewer movements, this was not considered necessary.  Regarding the viability of affordable housing, said the success of this scheme was fundamental to the regeneration of the Bonella site, and there was a lot of evidence and peer review demonstrating justification of 15% affordable units on a quid pro quo basis – the site was sustainable and brownfield, would open up the Honeybourne Line, permeable, user-friendly for local residents, and supported by the Civic Society and the Architects’ Panel – a very popular initiative.  Said great care had been taken with the design and boundary treatments in this location, to protect the existing residential amenity, and the proposed development was both attractive and better for Gloucester Road than what it there at the moment.

 

 

Member debate:

PJ:  agreed with these comments and said the proposal ticked many boxes in favour of its approval.  Wanted to support the application but had doubts regarding the affordable housing provision. Was concerned about the lack of evidence and information about affordable housing in the Officer report, and with pressure on greenbelt land, and more and more brownfield sites being developed with little or no affordable housing, said there was extreme pressure in town for more affordable housing.

 

MS:  wholeheartedly supported the application, and considered it very sensible use of this brownfield site and much better than what is there now.  Liked the cottage-style houses, thought these would be excellent homes for people, and had no concern about affordable housing, believing that this needed to be linked to the retention of employment in the Cheltenham vicinity.  Said it was important not to constrain the development by insisting on more affordable housing – this was what the government wanted, and if the proposal was refused on that basis and went to appeal, the Council would lose.

 

BD:  on the whole agreed with the development but had a few questions.  Referring to Para 6.6.1, said there must be a condition for trees and landscaping to make it a good place for families and children.  Disagreed with MS and was disappointed not to see more affordable housing included.  Said there was a desperate need, and developers had no conscience, by including the very least they could.  Regarding the S106 contribution of £30k to public art, said public art was very pleasant but that there was a crying need for a children’s play area on the High Street for which no funding was available – thought that priorities were muddled here.  Was also concerned about residents of Malvern Road whose gardens would be in shadow for part of the day.

 

PT:  referred to the comments from the crime prevention design adviser and the aim to design out crime.  Noted that laminated glazing was recommended for glazed door panels and adjacent windows, and that housing association properties were obliged to be built on Secured by Design principles but other houses on the site weren’t – thought this a cause for concern. With reference to Page 23, asked about the historic engine shed on the site, as described by the County Archaeologist, which may be significant in the area – thought it a shame to cover it up for ever.  Regarding the trees, wasn’t sure which tree was which – T2 and T4 are referred to, but only one in the corner seems to be retained - and asked Officers for clarification.

 

RG:  had concerns about the proposal - recognised the argument about investment in Tewkesbury Road but thought the price was high.  Noted the density of the dwellings on site – three-storey houses, flats, not what he would call ‘cottage style’, and felt these gave a ‘make-do’ impression and were not inspiring.  Thought the arguments were based entirely on economics, and a multi-national company such as Travis Perkins could afford better.  Would support the proposal, recognising the arguments, but did not consider it the best.

 

GB:  had looked at the scheme when it was first mooted and asked about affordable housing – was told then that there was no plan to include any because of viability constraints.  Considered 16 affordable units a bonus, in view of the viability of the two schemes working together, noting that the other properties weren’t exactly mansions, and included terraced houses and flats which could be considered affordable.  Overall and on balance, considered this to be a viable scheme which just about cuts the mustard.  Thought the opening of access to the Honeybourne Line – taking down the fir trees and opening up the aspect to allow a wider range of people to make better use of its facilities - a huge advantage, and in view of these advantages, was relaxed about the level of affordable housing.

 

KS:  thought this a tricky application and really wanted to like it – it was not built on fields and it was good to see Travis Perkins doing well and staying in the town.  However, said that this is a precious site and planners should be demanding the absolute best of it for existing and future residents. Realised that it was situated in a dense housing area, but said there was not enough amenity space or parks – wanted to see playspace on the Honeybourne Line, as apart from the tiny park near Lansdown and a play area in Churchill Road,  there was nowhere for families to play to make it a viable proposal.  Thought the families would be squashed into the development, and considered to design to be grim – traditional but without any quality or inspiration.  Thought the designers could do better.  Noted the row of garages with a flat over very close to the boundary of a property in Malvern Road; thought this looked awkward on the site, saying the developers had combined the need for parking spaces with fitting in another unit – said this should not be done.  Wanted to support the proposal, but did not consider it good enough for this important site.

 

CC:  shared a lot of the other comments and concerns, but cautioned against the call for something bolder on the site, saying Members had seen examples of bolder designs just down the road on planning view which did not look good - would like to see this site kept more traditional in design.  Liked the opening of the Honeybourne Line, saying it was good for residents and others to know that it would be made more secure.  Said his main concern was with the residents of Malvern Road – the proposed flats had been pushed down to that end of the site.  On planning view, had noted the site levels and considered that the 2.5 storey houses would have less impact than the Malvern Road residents believed to be the case.  Also noted on planning view the boundary fences and walls, trees and greenery on the back gardens of Malvern Road, and said that these should be preserved to ensure security and privacy, both of the utmost importance.

 

BF:  noted the crime prevention advisor’s comments about secure by design dwellings, and thought it silly to have a large number of houses but only 16 secure by design – thought the standards applied to the affordable units should be mandatory for all the houses.  Could not imagine much difference in price between laminated glass and normal glass and thought it crazy not to include it for all houses, if we want crime to drop – it would save money in the long term.

 

AM:  shared similar concerns to other Members.  Said part of him really wanted to like the application and that it ticked a lot of boxes.  However, considered the design to be bland and uninspired, saying that it won’t add to the streetscape of Gloucester Road – the designers could do better.  Was very concerned about the justification for 15% affordable housing – Travis Perkins is a multi-national company.  Companies don’t expect to relocate for nothing, and if the need to relocate was excluded, 40% affordable housing would be required on this site.  Understood Para 6.6.5 of the report but said there is a big difference between 15% and 40%, and thought this should be looked at again, together with design and security.  Wanted the scheme to be a major success, but thought KS had made a good point – this is an average scheme for an important site – there are not many of these left in the town, and he was not convinced that this proposal was doing to best for it.

 

PH:  approved of opening up the Honeybourne Line as this would also improve residents’ perception of it, solving several problems in one go.  Noted the Urban Design Manager’s comments on Page 29 about Unit 44 – the flat over the garages – and thought that this needed further consideration.

 

PT:  noticed the transport people agreed with the proposed vehicular access onto Gloucester Road, but pointed out that there are actually five accesses – the main one being a road through the centre of site, with two to the right and two to the left.  Thought this would result in a lot of egress onto Gloucester Road, although the smaller accesses were technically lay-bys serving just a few houses with few cars, and wondered if Highways realised they were all there.

 

HM:  asked whether the HMO concern about the useable floor area of smaller bedrooms had been redressed.

 

IRC, in response:

-          to PJ, concerning affordable housing, said financial information had been submitted confidentially, although Memberscould see it if they wished.  As the authority could not independently assess the financial implications, this was sent to the District Valuation Service, which gives independent advice to the public sector.  Their advice back to the Borough Council was that the scheme could be viable with 40% affordable housing.  The District Valuation Service was subsequently asked to assess whether, when the figures for the redevelopment of Bonella Works were taken into account, the figures provided were realistic, and whether the reduction to 15% affordable justified to achieve the redevelopment of the Tewkesbury Road site.  They considered it was acceptable;

-          if this was an independent case, 40% affordable housing would be required, but to realise the Gloucester Road site, Travis Perkins has to relocate.  Bonella Works site is ideal – within the borough, brownfield, vacant for some time – and no jobs would be lost;

-          however, if permission is granted on the basis of that information and the suggested S106 and the Tewkesbury Road development does not take place, the legal link between the two sites can’t be made and the planning permission to develop the Gloucester Road site would  fail;

-          officers had looked carefully at the two schemes and told Members that it can be tied legally.  Insisting on 40% affordable units would result in a totally different scenario, and Members could only determine what is front of them.

 

PJ:  fully accepted the independent valuations and thought that Members may take comfort from this, but was still concerned that if the two schemes stood alone, 40% affordable would be required.  Was not asking for 40% but for as much as could be afforded, adding again that this is a multi-national company which was clearly working in its share-holders’ interest here, not for the residents of Cheltenham.  Moved to defer – said there were still many questions to be answered.

 

IRC, in response:

-          failed to see what would be achieved by deferral.  Said these two applications formed a package, and if Members don’t want it or didn’t think it will be delivered as a package, the residential development won’t take place;

-          referred Members to Para 21 of the NPPF, which states that investment in business shouldn’t be over-burdened by the combined requirements of planning policy expectations.  This is a sustainable development tied to another site; if the link breaks down, the development can’t take place;

-          if the DVS was re-consulted, it would come up with the same figures in terms of the development package;

-          to BD, said landscaping and trees were covered by Condition 15 – there will be a fair amount of good-quality landscaping, with the Trees Officer involved.

 

BD:  asked if Members can see this

 

HM:  confirmed that it is freely available.

 

IRC, in response:

-          said there are many plans concerning landscaping and planting, and the Trees Officer and landscape designer have been involved to ensure a high-quality scheme on Gloucester Road and the Honeybourne Line;

-          to BD, regarding shadowing of gardens in Malvern Road, said there was shadowing at 9.00am but at other times of day there is a good range of light, with hardly any shadowing from the garage over the garden;

-          regarding S106 contribution to public art, said that this is one of the Council’s requirements, and Officers negotiate this contribution in line with the Local Plan, as they do for affordable housing;

-          to BF, with reference to the Police Liaison Officer’s comments about laminated glass, said Secure by Design is the gold standard for all affordable and social housing, and PLO comments are normally copied directly to the applicants with the planning permission, to make sure that they are aware of what has been suggested.  Said this is more an issue for building control than for planning;

-          to PT’s comments about the engine shed, said there is a standard condition with reference to archaeology, in line with national policy;

-          regarding PT’s concerns about trees, wasn’t sure which trees she was referring to.  Confirmed that the majority of trees on Gloucester Road were to be removed, street trees would be retained and supplemented, and a new planting regime all along the Honeybourne Line would be implemented;

-          to RG, said the density of 42% wasn’t out of keeping with the immediate surroundings, and relates well to the context of the local plan.  Said it would be hard to raise an objection on this ground;

-          to KS, said there had been a lot of comments relating to the design, and it was true that the applicant had gone for the easy option regarding architecture – complementary to existing buildings in Gloucester Road.  Agreed that it was not an architecturally outstanding scheme and there was no WOW factor, but said local residents were happy with it and it reflected what is around the area.  Did not consider this a reason to object to the scheme;

-          regarding playspace, said all the houses have gardens and the Honeybourne play area is not insignificant and is well used;

-          regarding the garages with the flat above, said the Urban Design Manager had been concerned about overlooking of the rear of the flat, but this was now dropped down and had no windows at the back.  This issue had therefore been addressed and should not cause any problem;

-          in response to CC’s concerns about the boundaries of properties on Malvern Road, said there was a condition requiring means of enclosure to be submitted.  There is vegetation along the boundary, all of which originates on the residential side – said this is a problem with any residential site and its retention could not be conditioned as it is outside the development site, but it is the duty of the developer to do a good job;

-          said the scheme was beneficial from residents’ point of view, and new houses will need to be built in a reasonable and acceptable manner;

-          to AM’s comments about the boring design, agreed that the developer had taken the easy option but well suited to the area;

-          regarding the justification for a reduced level of affordable housing, said the real issue Members must realise is that government advice is changing.  Said 15% was more than was intended when the applicants first drew up their plans, and the economic benefits made this acceptable;

-          to PT’s question about access points, said all of these were shown on the drawings which would have been seen by the Highways Officer, but County Highways was concerned about primary access into the site – the central access which serves most of the houses, as opposed to the smaller ones which serve just a few – and was happy that this was a safe option;

-          to HM’s concern about the size of the small bedrooms, said there would be problems ahead for the developers if they failed to meet standard requirements.

 

SW:  asked if all roads were to be constructed to adoptable standards.

 

PT:  was going to ask the same question.  Asked about hours of work during construction, and what colour the houses would be – said it was hard to tell from the drawings.

 

PH:  returning to the flat over the garages, asked how the narrow strip behind it would be used.

 

RG:  reiterated KS’s concerns about the lack of a playspace contribution.  Said the houses may have gardens, but was worried about the flats.  Said the proposal should be refused on policy RC6 – lack of amenity and green space.

 

BD:  asked if the Friends of the Honeybourne Line had been consulted about the scheme – it would be good to involve them in any discussion.

 

AM:  said IRC had emphasised the economic benefits of the linked scheme, but asked how many jobs and how many millions of pounds were at stake here.

 

BF:  reminded Members that the Honeybourne Line play area was very easy to access from the site.

 

IRC, in response:

-          regarding adoption of the roads, said these are shown on the drawing in a terracotta-brown colour, and covered the bulk of the main access roads into the estate – confirmed that all these roads would be adopted;

-          to PT’s question about the colour of the houses, said these would be red brick on the Gloucester Road side, lighter elsewhere in the site and facing the Honeybourne Line.  There would be gradation through the site, in keeping with the area;

-          to PH, said the land at the back of Plot 44 would be in the ownership of the flat above the garage – the land dropped down and it would form a small tight amenity space;

-          to BD, regarding the Friends of the Honeybourne Line, said they had been involved in discussion but the problem here is that the Honeybourne Line is outside the site, and the aim of the application is to improve the access rather than the line itself.  The proposal gives a direct view through to the line at three access point and would give a lift to this part of the Honeybourne Line;

-          to AM’s question about economic benefits, said there were no economic constraints but several economic benefits with this scheme, including the redevelopment of a brownfield site, the provision of houses to meet targets, the retention of an employment base in the town, construction jobs during the redevelopment of the site – all this contributed to the economy of the town;

-          to RG’s suggestion that the scheme could be refused on RC6, said there had been an independent assessment of the viability of the scheme, considering various contributions – education , libraries, affordable housing, public art.  Another financial contribution would have a direct impact on the viability of the scheme, and would therefore be contrary to the advice in the NPPF.  Did not consider this sufficient ground to warrant refusal.

 

KS:  remained concerned about the issue of design.  Thought the scheme to be a wasted opportunity but much more than this as well - boring, unsuccessful and too dense – adding that it was not acceptable for the developer to neither provide any playspace on the site nor contribute to playspace via a S106 payment.  Was concerned about the social impact of allowing the proposal to go ahead in this way.  Was not too familiar with the play area on the Honeybourne Line, but said 300 new residents would need more space.  Considered this a fundamental issue - decent communal areas are really important to the quality of life of a community.  Didn’t want a bold design but thought the architecture to be cheap and municipal-looking, not right for this development.  Said IRC’s comments about Plot 44 had not taken her concerns away – it would impact on the gardens behind, looked cramped and awkward in the space, and should be removed to make this corner of the site work better in an urban design way.  Regarding affordable housing, felt a bit more easy about this; there is a definite need in the town but felt 15% was acceptable, if pepper-potted throughout the site.  Said a scheme of this importance should look good and be a pleasant place to live, and issues surrounding the quality of the design and playspace needed to be ironed out.  

 

MS:  said it would be wrong to defer this application, and this would place an unfair burden on Officers trying to renegotiate.  Thought Members should approve or refuse, and take a chance on an appeal.  If the plug was pulled on account of the outside boundary, the town would be left with the Bonella site.  It would be wrong to defer on the points raised so far.

 

AC:  had two questions:  was pleased to hear that the roads will be adopted, but asked who would be responsible for maintenance of the service roads off Gloucester Road.  Also asked about access to the flat over the garages, and whether it would be possible to get to it direct.

 

GB:  had just noticed pedestrian access - could not see any on the main roadways into the site.  Was concerned about the safety of pedestrians and traffic at the junction – people with prams and children – and asked if this had been taken into account.

 

PJ:  was in a quandary.  Accepted that deferral wasn’t the right option and wanted to see the proposal permitted, but thought there were too many unanswered questions.  Said again that Travis Perkins is a multi-national company and it was stated that the move would cost them £9m.  Did not think enough information had been provided, and although he wanted to support the proposal, would vote for refusal if this was the only option.

 

LG:  had been listening patiently and carefully, and considered some excellent comments to have been made.  Agreed that the design could be better and had an awful feeling that if the scheme is permitted, Members will be shocked when they walk past the development in the future and realise that this is what they had approved.  Said KS had made some excellent points, the comments of the Civic Society and Architects’ Panel needed to be looked at more carefully, and so did the size of the rooms, as raised by HM.  Was persuaded by Para 56 of the NPPF, which stressed the great importance of design of the built environment, which should contribute positively to making places better for people.  Noted too that although the Urban Design Manager accepted the proposal, he suggested the internal lay-out could be reconsidered and improved.  Thought the developers could do better with the site, and hoped that when it was finally constructed, it would be a lot better than it was currently.  Moved to refuse on policy CP7 – design.

 

AM:  had listened to IRC’s economic arguments and was now less convinced that previously - the economic benefits without affordable housing and without Travis Perkins would be the same.  Accepted the requirements of Para 21 of the NPPF, but said this referred to individual applications.  Had been assured this decision was not fettered by approval of the previous application.  Accepted the 15% issue on affordable housing was driven by the desire to make this scheme fund the Tewkesbury Road development, and also agreed that the design is bland and uninspired.  Did not think Members should be swayed by Travis Perkins’ stated intention to leave Cheltenham if they don’t get their permission – thought the worst case scenario would be that they would stay where they are. Thought this was nonsense and that this application shouldn’t be decided on spurious ideas of what constituted an economic benefit.  Had supported PJ’s move to defer, but had been convinced by IRC that this was the wrong decision – would vote for refusal.

 

RG:  said this was a difficult case to decide, and for him would have to be an on-balance decision, weighed up against the advantage of the Tewkesbury Road site – this is not developed now, but will provide 25 jobs, which will be an economic benefit.  Did not want to know all the reasons why the proposal would be an economic benefit, preferring to trust that Officers had discussed and considered this at length.  Agreed that the design was not brilliant, but didn’t think this was a reason to refuse - a sound planning reason was needed for that.  Said the economic development, opening of the Honeybourne Line, additional jobs, and development of the Tewkesbury Road site were all good.  Thought the new houses would be in great demand, and would give a new meaning to The Railway Children.

 

HM:  asked PJ if he still wanted to move for deferral.

 

PJ:  said he did not.  Withdrew the move to defer, saying the application should be refused.

 

IRC, in response:

-          said RG was right, Officers had discussed at length and given a lot of thought to the implications of the development itself and the economic development of the town;

-          was concerned about the move to refuse on design, saying Members needed to say what is actually wrong with the design.  In context, it fits well into the Gloucester Road frontage and throughout the site and provides good surveillance over the Honeybourne Line.  Said sufficient points would be needed to pursue this as a refusal reason;

-          could see Members’ point and agreed that the design is not the most exciting – it is a safe option and appropriate in its context.  Said the drawings don’t show it at its best and it is difficult to get a 3D feeling from them;

-          quoted the NPPF Para 49, that there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development, and this scheme will contribute towards the 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites, adding that allthough this is crucial, it doesn’t mean that Officers will accept whatever is thrown at them and this would lead to problems.

 

PJ:  if looking at the application as a stand-alone, asked to add policy HS4 as a refusal reason.

 

KS:  said RC6 and RC7 are both useful as refusal reasons – there is not enough on-site playspace of public amenity space, and this is a crucial issue.

 

AM: said he had not realised that Para 49 quoted by IRC meant that Members had to accept anything.  Pointed out that no-one had said this site wasn’t suitable for housing.  Realised that there was no 5-year supply but said this didn’t mean that planners can’t stand by their policies.

 

IRC, in response:

-          agreed that it doesn’t mean that they have to accept anything that’s thrown at them, but if an application is going to be refused, there have to be good reasons for doing so;

-          said PJ had referred to this as a free-standing application, but it was made quite clear from the start that it is linked to the other development.  The Tewkesbury Road scheme could stand alone, but this is directly linked to it.  Officers have written the report on that basis and Members should look at it in this way;  if it was to become a free-standing application,  it could be looked again with regard to HS4, and the percentage of affordable housing would be reconsidered;

-          said the way in which the application was submitted meant that 15% affordable units is a bonus, over and above what was originally discussed.  By agreeing to this, the Gloucester Road site would be developed, and so would the Tewkesbury Road site, which had been undeveloped for years.  It was a highly sustainable scheme, albeit not a particularly exciting one - although this was not a reason to refuse and could not be argued at appeal.

 

HM:  asked LG if he wanted to flesh out his reasons for refusal on policy CP7.

 

LG:  said CP7 (design) and NPPF Para 56 were his suggested refusal reasons, and it was difficult to qualify what was good or bad design.  Could argue the external elevations, poor layout, alleyways to access rear gardens, lack of public outside space and lack of public meeting spaces were all relevant.  Could also quote the Civic Society and Architects’ Panel’s lack of support for the proposal, but thought CP7 and the NPPF were sufficient.  Said Members are not architects, and can only try to put across what people in the area think about the scheme – it was not incumbent on Members to list architectural errors.  Thought the suggested reasons were sufficient and would speak for themselves at an appeal.

 

MJC, in response:

-          said that month by month, Members were encouraged by Officers to take a positive approach to planning applications; tonight there were a lot of negatives.  IRC had emphasised the good things about this scheme:  affordable housing, redevelopment of Bonella Works site, jobs, retention of Travis Perkins.  Said at an appeal, these real positives would be weighed against the merits of the design, making it difficult to argue.  The NPPF also encourages planners to take a positive approach and look for solutions.  Said that there would be a struggle to defend the suggested refusal reasons at appeal.

 

GB:  noted that much had been said about the design, and admitted to struggling with this viewpoint.  Said the drawings did not give the best picture of what the design would ultimately look like.  The houses had been described as bland, but architects weren’t out to win a Civic Society award every time.  Thought these were decent houses which didn’t denigrate the area, and there were no design faults to make them out of place in Gloucester Road.  Members could require this or that, but there was nothing to demonstrate that the houses were utterly without hope – they were adequate for what they were required to do, that is, provide housing for a lot of people in the town.  Regarding recreation space, did not consider this a real issue, as there is a huge amount of green space to the left of the site – Winston Gardens and the Honeybourne Line.  Would struggle to support refusal on design grounds.  Would like to hear Officer comment on the pedestrianised areas, but had heard nothing so far which would cause him to vote against the application.

 

IRC, in response:

-          said there was a footway on either side of the entrance and thereafter shared surface – this is the way sites are being designed now.  There was a major link through the site with a central cross element and shared facilities – this was how the estate design had evolved.

 

GB:  asked if there would be conflict between pedestrians and cars.

 

IRC, in response:

-          said the scheme had been designed with traffic calming in mind, with changes of direction and materials - this is the evolution of street design.  To go back to a traditional 1950s-60s-style estate would be a retrograde step.

 

PJ:  in view of this, suggested adding CP4 as a refusal reason, saying there was an almost identical estate in his ward of Springbank, which wasn’t safe – in fact it was dangerous, with people being knocked over and council lorries unable to access all the houses.  Did not consider this type of lay-out safe or sustainable, given the 90^o corners.

 

IRC, in response:

-          said this could not be sustained at an appeal – there was a drawing demonstrating the tracking of vehicles round the site, and the Highways Authority was OK with the type, scale and nature of the road lay-out within the site.

 

HM:  said HS4 could be appropriate, in view of Para 6.6.3 of the officer report.

 

AC:  asked for an answer to his question about the service roads.  Thought these could be overrun with weeds and become an eyesore.

 

PT:  asked for an answer to her question about construction hours

 

RG:  thought Members were making a mess of this debate and making policies on the hoof – they had made little progress after a two-hour discussion.  Reminded them that if this was a stand-alone site, it would not be at planning committee – Officers would have sorted it out – but it wasn’t a stand-alone, and the NPPF had been brought in to make sure that planning was done well.  Said it was the job of Members to weigh up the proposal, and rather than looking for reasons to refuse, they should be looking for reasons to approve, as set out in the NPPF.  If the scheme was to be refused, it would need very sound reasons.

 

HM:  told PT that the hours of operation during construction were set out in Condition 5.

 

IRC, in response:

-          to AC, said the driveways he was concerned about were private, to serve a limited number of houses, and that the development was following a standard approach here.

 

TC, in response:

-          wanted to sum up, though said RG had done a good job of this and mentioned all the main factors;

-          stressed that these are two very important sites, and said that Members had been dragged into consideration of other issues, looking for refusal reasons;

-          reminded them that the current use of the site in Gloucester Road was not appropriate to a residential area, and that the Bonella Works site was empty and in decline;

-          the proposal would make more appropriate use of Gloucester Road, and bring Bonella Works back into full use – and this is a key site, on one of the main gateways to Cheltenham;

-          said the plan is important to the economy of Cheltenham in the widest sense and in line with the NPPF;

-          regarding the suggested refusal reasons RC6 and RC7, said the play area on the Honeybourne Line had recently been improved and increased in size, with better facilities.  The new development would have direct access to the Honeybourne Line, which would also provide a cycle route to the wider facilities of Cheltenham;

-          acknowledged that HS4 is an important policy, but reminded Members of the input of Officers in negotiating 16 affordable units.  Said it should be noted that exceptional circumstances are clearly involved in this case – the retention of a key employer in the town, and the re-use of a brownfield site when the economy is constrained;

-          considered the arguments for refusal on CP7 to be exhausted, and the arguments for CP4 to be very weak;

-          urged Members to reflect on the arguments before them from an Officer perspective.

 

Vote taken on LG’s move to refuse on CP7 and the NPPF

5 in support

10 in objection

0 abstentions

PERMIT