Agenda item

The Senior Planning Officer, Emma Pickernell, introduced the report regarding the proposal for the outline application for residential development including means of access (indicative layout of 85 dwellings) at the former Christ College site. Officers considered the principle of proposal and the access were acceptable and therefore the officer recommendation was to approve it. 

Public Speaking:

Mr Kevin Hunt, applicant’s planning consultant, in support

Mr Hunt explained that the application proposed redevelopment of the former Christ College School site following the relocation of the school to the All Saints Academy.  The construction of the Academy was funded, in part, by the Clifton Diocese as the owners of the Christ College site.  As such there had always been a recognition that following the completion of the All Saints Academy, the Christ College land would be brought forward for residential development.

In his opinion, the redevelopment of the site would have a direct and positive impact on the delivery of new homes in Cheltenham.  In turn this would help to reduce pressure on the five-year housing land supply by providing a range of family homes in a sustainable urban location on previously developed land.

In respect of highways matters, the county highways officers had advised that the scheme provided a safe access onto the public highway and that there were no residential amenity concerns.  Highways officers had also confirmed that there were no highway safety grounds on which to refuse this application.

In respect of the layout proposed he stressed that it was indicative in nature and simply demonstrated that the number of houses could be delivered in a safe and sustainable manner.  It would be for subsequent Reserved Matters applications to define the layout and design of individual buildings and he was sure that officers would deal comprehensively with the design to provide a high-quality scheme based on the principles agreed in this Outline application.

He highlighted that this application would secure the retention of the Sports Hall. His client had entered into an agreement with the YMCA who would manage the sports hall and make it available to the public, a significant advantage arising from this application.  The application also included provision for on-site open space including a children's play area and a comprehensive network of paths which would integrate the site into the surrounding community. The scheme offered full education, library and open space contribution in line with the requirements. In respect of affordable housing, they had undertaken a Viability Analysis, which had been independently verified by the Valuation Office, and which confirmed that the scheme would not be viable if a 40% affordable housing provision was applied.  However they had entered into a collaborative process with officers and had agreed to the provision of 20% affordable housing which meant that the scheme would be viable and therefore would be developed to help meet both local market and affordable housing needs.

The officer's report had confirmed that the scheme was fully policy compliant in all other respects including residential amenity, highway safety, ecology, ground conditions and flood risk.  Furthermore it was clear that the redevelopment of the site would be to the benefit of the local community and would contribute to the delivery of sustainable housing on previously developed land within the town. He therefore urged the committee to accept the officer’s recommendations and approve the application.

Member debate

Councillor Wheeler acknowledged that the application was for outline permission only but he felt this could cause problems further down the line if members then wanted to challenge aspects of the development. He challenged the statement that 40% of affordable housing was not affordable for the developers and commented that this was an argument that the committee had heard many times.  In his opinion if 40% could not be achieved on this site it could not be achievable anywhere in the country (county?).  He also considered that a density of 33 units per hectare was not a good use of this brownfield land in a prime position for residential housing.

Councillor Driver thought the developers should go back to the drawing board with regard to the design and take on some of the points that police had raised. In particular she was unhappy that the play area was situated on the edge of the site.  She thought it should be situated in the middle of the site whereby children could be integrated into the community. She requested that this be fed back to the developers.  

Councillor Garnham was happy with the principle of the development but would prefer to see a height limit set of 2.5 storeys in keeping with other buildings in the area which were generally lower than the trees. He also questioned how strong the agreement was relating to continuing investment in facilities at the All Saints Academy outlined in paragraph 6.7.6 of the report.

Councillor Fisher supported the concerns about the low level of affordable housing and he thought it was a contrived design to get the level of affordable housing down. There was a great need in Cheltenham for more affordable housing. He was concerned that the children's play area was in the flood zone.

Councillor McCloskey was happy to support the application as it related to access only but she too was concerned about the low level of affordable housing and the play area being overlooked and sited next to the sports hall which was open to the general public. She was concerned that users of the sports hall could be driving through the development early in the morning and late in the evening and causing disturbance to residents.

Councillor Fletcher was happy with the proposed density of the development of 33 dwellings per hectare (dph), as she thought the quality-of-life for residents was important. She had some concerns about the design and thought the layout needed more thought, particularly the frontage.

In the debate that followed, members raised similar concerns about the low level of affordable housing and thought this needed to be addressed in the next stage of the process. They pointed out that it was a level site with no contaminated land and therefore it was not a difficult site to develop which should keep costs down. Councillor Walklett presented some figures which suggested that Cheltenham had lost out on the potential for a hundred affordable homes over the last three meetings of this committee. Councillor McKinlay felt that the level of affordable housing could be easily increased by increasing the density of the site. He felt the number of houses could be increased to 100 without any significant effects and he was concerned that agreeing the outline proposal might rubberstamp the 85 properties proposed.  Councillor Garnham referred members to para 6.6.1 of the report which clarified why the number of 85 had been indicated at this stage as it triggered a requirement for affordable housing. Councillor Godwin felt that committee should not criticise the proposed density which in his opinion supported gardens of a reasonable size, better amenity areas for children and generally more elbow room for residents. He questioned whether the committee had a clear understanding of the definition of affordable housing and asked for an explanation from officers.

There was some discussion about the height limit suggested by Councillor Garnham. Councillor Whyborn suggested that there were quite a lot of three-storey properties in that area so he would encourage this if it enhanced the economics of the development.

Councillor Thornton raised a concern that the access to the site would come out on the zigzags of a pedestrian crossing. She did not think it was appropriate to move the pedestrian crossing and therefore asked the highways officer to comment on whether the access was appropriately sited and why a centralised access was not possible. She suggested that parking courts were not generally popular with residents who preferred to park outside their own property for ease of use particularly with heavy shopping. 

The Planning Officer advised that although there was an overall  target of 40% of affordable housing, it was important to assess every case on its merits. In this case, the approach set out in the NPPF had been followed and an independent assessment had determined a viable level of affordable housing of 20%.  As this was only an outline application, a different mix may come forward at reserved matter stage so there would be an opportunity for members to reassess it. There were particular difficulties with this site as it was bounded by footpaths. Officers considered that the density of 33 dph was within the realms of acceptable limits and not overly low. However there was the option for the committee to add an informative if they felt the density should be higher. Similarly the figure of 85 dwellings was only indicative at this stage and could be reassessed. Regarding the building height, she understood that the intention was for a mix of 2 and 2.5 storey buildings within an area which was generally two-storey. She felt it would be a shame to limit the design at this stage. She advised that the play area was in a reasonable location where it linked with other facilities likely to be used by children such as the sports hall. An informative could be put in to comment on the positioning of the play area if members felt this was an important issue. The loss of some sporting facilities had been mitigated by the supply of other facilities on land owned by the developers and therefore she did not think it was necessary to add any further conditions.  With regard to the access for the site this had been negotiated with the highways department.

The Highways Officer, Mark Power, advised that the access had already been moved in the plans to a safer location away from the bridge and existing junctions. Two local councillors had been keen to retain the pedestrian crossing in its current position and in his opinion it was acceptable for the access to come out onto the zigzags of this crossing.

Head of Planning, Tracey Crews, informed members that officers were currently working on amending the definitions for affordable housing which would include social rented housing and these would be circulated to members shortly. In the meantime, the NPPF offered the most up-to-date guidance.

Members were concerned that future plans for this site should be brought back to this committee and requested that this be noted in the minutes. The planning officer reminded members that it was in the remit of any member of the council to refer the matter to Planning Committee. 

The Planning Offficer summarised her understanding that members were generally supportive of the scheme but were concerned about the density and the level of affordable housing and the informative will be reworded to take this into account.

Vote taken on the officer recommendation to permit

11 in support

2 in objection

2 abstentions

PERMIT