Agenda item

 

Application Number:			13/00111/FUL
Location:	Former Bonella Works, Tewkesbury Road, Cheltenham
Proposal:	Erection of  builders' merchant's premises (sui generis) for the display, sales and storage of building, timber and plumbing supplies, plant and tool hire, including outside display and storage, with associated servicing arrangements, car parking, landscaping and associated works
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit
Committee Decision:			Permit
Letters of Rep:		1	Update Report:		Additional condition

 

Public Speaking:

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

Said this is an important application which commanded strong support at consultation.  Members had visited the site and could see that it is in a poor state of repair and a focal point for anti-social behaviour.  This application presents a golden opportunity to regain a brownfield site and put it to good economic use, and puts Travis Perkins in the unique situation of relocating within the town, with all existing jobs retained.  The company is an important supplier for small and medium-sized businesses as well as the public, and the proposed location is ideal for all its customers.  The investment for the construction and fit-out would be £9m, financed by the sale of the Gloucester Road site, and there were no statutory obligations on this application.   Said the proposal had been strongly supported at pre-app stage, and hoped that Members would accept the recommendation for approval as a first course entrée of the two courses on offer this evening.

 

Member debate:

RG:  thought Members were doing the right thing by considering this Travis Perkins application first, but was alarmed by the blue update which stated that this proposal wasn’t strictly dependant on the Gloucester Road scheme being approved.  Considered them to be linked and wanted to establish an audit trail, having been in a similar situation before with Kier Construction and needing the weigh one off against the other. 

 

HM:  agreed that this is an important point and asked the Legal Officer to comment.

 

CL, in response:

-          confirmed that the application could be considered on its own merits and as a stand-alone scheme, although the Gloucester Road application was dependent upon this one.

 

MS:  will support the scheme.  Has a slight concern about the fork-lift trucks which operate in the current Travis Perkins yard with loud buzzers at the back.  Asked if a condition could be added to ensure that these are kept as far away as possible from Brook Road and other existing houses, where the noise could be an inconvenience and a nuisance.  Asked Officers if there was any way to mitigate against undue noise.

 

PT:  asked if Condition 18 could be amended slightly to say that all vehicles should turn right into Brook Road to avoid a lot of cars driving through the residential area as people come to shop at Travis Perkins.  Thought this would mitigate the traffic in the estate, which is busy enough already.  Said that on Planning View, she had been given to understand the Brook Road site would be built before the Gloucester Road site was developed. 

 

LG:  said it was difficult to oppose this application, but the update regarding conditions gave cause for concern.  Wondered if the wording of the condition will be satisfactory, adding that signs directing drivers in and out of the site don’t guarantee that people will abide by them.   Said this seems to be an essential point considering the closeness of the development to a residential area.  The suggested condition states that drivers of large vehicles should be discouraged from using residential roads, but there was no legal impact if they did.  Thought this should be strengthened if possible.

 

IRC, in response:

-          regarding the suggested condition, said this referred to drivers in general, not whether their vehicles were large or small, although it was reasonable to assume that a lot of the vehicles on the site would be large;

-          to LG, said Brook Road is a public highway, and drivers cannot be prevented from using it – only discouraged.  Had spoken to Mark Power about this, and accesses had been designed to allow one-way movement of HGVs through the site.  HGVs will not be able to egress into Brook Road, and he doesn’t consider that drivers of delivery vehicles would want to, as it takes more time.  Said the southern radii onto Brook Road would be reduced to discourage access from this direction.  The condition requires access details to be approved, and Mark Power has confirmed that when the details are looked at, he can ensure that a right turn will be very undesirable and drivers will not want to turn right.

 

CC:  was pleased that this condition had been added following Planning View and that Members’ concerns had been dealt with appropriately.  Remained concerned about drivers turning left onto Moors Avenue, and asked if there was any chance of signage to prevent access to the Travis Perkins site from that side.  Said drivers of large vehicles will take any route possible, and Moors Avenue is home to many young families, with children likely to be playing outside.  Was keen to minimise the risk to them resulting from having this large site on their doorstep, but was otherwise very much in support of the application, which brings a disused site back to life.

 

BF:  asked if there was any condition about hours of work.  Thought this should be included, though assumed that these would be similar to the Gloucester Road site.

 

IRC, in response:

-          said the condition talks about delivery of materials to the delivery yard, and that there were currently no restrictions at the Gloucester Road site.  It was felt that deliveries at weekends may cause problems, and they were therefore being limited to Monday-Friday only, but not to any specific time of day;

-          to RG, said the difference between this situation and Kier Construction is that the Bonella Works scheme is a stand-alone proposal and the site is already in existing industrial use.  If this particular scheme is approved but not implemented, in any event building on Gloucester Road would be linked directly to this approval on Tewkesbury Road; if it is not implemented, it would not comply with the S106 agreement imposed on Gloucester Road.  Said the two schemes were sufficiently tied up and there was no need to restrict this application by an S106 agreement;

-          to MS’s earlier question about mitigating the noise of fork-lift trucks, said there was a problem here as fork-lift trucks make a noise for health and safety reasons, and it was difficult to know whether their usage would increase at the new site.

 

RG:  said most of the discussion so far had concerned traffic, and it was good to have heard Mark Power’s view, via IRC.  Suggested MP should be given the gist of tonight’s conversation as an informative before starting work on the travel plan.

 

PT:  thought health and safety probably wasn’t an issue when the Bonella site was last in use.  Asked if the working hours can be restricted – not before 6am or after 6pm or all over the weekend – and what Travis Perkins’ working hours are now at the Gloucester Road site.  Said that in a fully residential area, work shouldn’t start before 8.00 in the morning, and nothing should be put in place which could cause a lot of disruption, saying that a lot of the residents of Brook Road weren’t living there when the site was previously in operation.

 

MS:  in view of IRC’s and PT’s comments, said it was rather important to restrict the hours of work to sensible times, and not after 6.00 in the evening.

 

AM:  asked for clarification of the legal advice that this application was not linked to the Gloucester Road application, with particular reference to the funding of this scheme by way of the other.  Wanted to be assured that by passing this application, Members would not be fettering their decision or altering the scope for response on the other.

 

IRC, in response:

-          said that this application could be a stand-alone application.  The link would occur with anything granted at Travis Perkins’ Gloucester Road site.  That site could not be developed unless the development of the current site has been carried out.  If Tewkesbury Road is developed in a different form, the permission at Gloucester road could not be implemented.

 

CL, in response:

-          said the direct answer to AM’s question is that the decision on the Tewkesbury Road application won’t fetter any decision on the Gloucester Road application.  Members should make their decision on this scheme, and may then want to link the Gloucester Road development to it.

 

AM:  asked if this meant Members could link the two schemes if they wanted to but don’t have to.

 

CL, in response:

-          said Members would most likely want to link them.

 

AM:  wanted to be sure that they were not pre-judging the other application.

 

KS:  supported the application by and large but was concerned about traffic.  Said Travis Perkins are good neighbours, but the traffic associated with them – men in white vans coming and going and often in a hurry – may not be so considerate.  Thought they would want to turn right onto Brook Road and was concerned about access – wished the Highways Officer was present to discuss.  Said Brook Road should be used for exit only – with children wandering along Tewkesbury Road and the possibility of drivers whipping round the corner, was surprised there had been no objections to it.

 

PJ:  spoke as a builder himself, and said it was true that they had notoriously interesting ways of getting to where they want.  Echoed other Members’ concerns, and hoped that the hours of operation could mirror the residential area and the impact of traffic be mitigated it best it could.

 

IRC, in response:

-          noted Members’ concern about traffic issues.  Said the report was very clear in terms of large delivery vehicles, which would go in one way and out the other; the issue was with smaller vehicles which had caused problems elsewhere;

-          the obvious route was left out of the site onto Brook Road, an immediate left onto Tewkesbury Road, and then out of or into town.  The other option – to turn right out of the site into Brook Road – can be prevented by design, and Mark Powers cannot see why drivers would want to use such a tortuous route.  The left turn is not far from traffic lights, and design of access and signs on site will significantly reduce the potential for anyone wanting to turn right and follow that tortuous route;

-          regarding hours of operation, thought it logical to repeat the hours used at the existing premises, but didn’t know what these are.  Suggested that, in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair, he will find out the hours of operation at Gloucester Road and impose a standard condition accordingly.

 

PJ:  accepted the argument about turning right when leaving the site, but was concerned about traffic further up.  Thought some drivers would avoid Brook Road and come to the site via Moors Avenue.

 

AC:  suggested that a stranger following GPS could be taken round Moors Avenue, and asked whether there would be signs directing drivers to the best way into the site.

 

LG:  remained concerned about the highways issue.  Agreed that logically, turning left was the best way to go, but said that logic doesn’t always prevail.  Had a suggestion:  would it not be sensible for pinch points to be located to the right of the access in Brook Road?  This works well in Warden Hill, and would ensure that no lorry would turn right as it wouldn’t be able to get through.

 

PT:  agreed with PJ, and thought cars and vans would go through Moors Avenue to the other entrance.

 

GB:  thought that Moors Avenue could end up as a rat run, unless traffic restrictions were installed and drivers were advised that the road was unsuitable.  In that way, anyone using Moors Avenue would soon be discouraged from doing so.

 

IRC, in response:

-          reminded Members that the site has an existing industrial use, with exits and entrances already in place.  Two of these were to be closed to improve the situation, but whatever happens to the site, access will be from Brook Road, allowing people to get out closer to Princess Elizabeth Way.  Said again that these roads are public highways and the bottom line was that people can drive where they want;

-          the only other restriction which could be imposed was a weight restriction, but the vehicles in question are not HGVs but builders’ vans.  Other traffic calming measures, including sleeping policemen, are already in place, and these together with parked cars would ensure that drivers would only go that way onlyonce;

-          said that improved signs and careful design of access would be enough to prevent drivers from turning right out of the site. 

 

BD:  asked whether there will be a condition about hours of delivery.

 

HM:  said there would - a standard condition with the agreed hours inserted.  Told Members the long, full debate about traffic issues would be recorded in the minutes and available for Mark Powers to consider.  Checked Members were happy for the Chair and Vice-Chair to work with Officers on the condition covering hours of operation.

 

Vote taken on officer recommendation to permit with additional condition

15 in support – unanimous

PERMIT