Agenda item

 

Application Number:			13/01101/FUL
Location:	Land at North Road West and Grovefield Way, Cheltenham
Proposal:	Proposed erection of a flagship BMW, Mini and Motorrad dealership including vehicle sales and servicing facilities and will include the creation of an access from Grovefield Way
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit, subjection to S106 agreement and ratification by the Secretary of State
Committee Decision:			Permit, subjection to S106 agreement and ratification by the Secretary of State
Letters of Rep:		25	Update Report:		Additional letter from Cllr Britter; suggested conditions and S106 requirements

 

Introduction

MJC introduced this application, saying it had a lengthy history, and an extant outline planning permission on the site – the site plan shows the area which benefits from that permission, and Members are being asked to consider the north-east third of that area.

 

 

Public Speaking:

As two separate individuals wanted to speak in support of this application, they were each allowed 1.5 minutes in which to do so.

 

Mr Andrew Hulcoop, Cotswold BMW, in support

The site at Tewkesbury Road is no longer acceptable from BMW’s point of view, and it does not make commercial sense to keep two businesses open in Cheltenham, hence the proposal to close the old site.  BMW employs 156 people in Cheltenham and Gloucester, its payroll adding £5m to the local community.  Following relocation, they would expect to grow that headcount significantly, bringing more employment to the town.   BMW prides itself on developing and training young people, with over 20 young trainees and apprentices, and its own training academy.  This proposal will be a huge investment, but is considered worthwhile and right for the local area.

 

Mr Paul Fong, Hunter Page Planning, in support

Members will all appreciate the full planning merits of the scheme, having read the report.  This is a comprehensive report, and HPPlanning worked hard with Officers to reach their conclusions. Is proud that this internationally-recognised brand wants to make significant investment in Cheltenham – it will be a landmark development based on a quality design, with sustainable facets and providing employment, wealth and prosperity to the local area.  Commends the scheme to Members.

 

 

Member debate:

MS:  this is a good scheme.  Commends the applicant for providing an excellent model which makes it so much easier to envisage, and represents the quality of the product sold.

 

JF:  this proposal is in her patch, and the site has a long history.  Sad that the green belt is to be built on, and would have liked to keep this as a green oasis, but the precedent has been set and there is no going back now.  The design is wonderful and innovative, and she wholly supports it.  Notes a lot of concern about traffic, but Mark Power at Gloucestershire Highways has said it will produce less motorists than an office development.  Grovefield Way can get very congested at peak hours but is free-flowing most of the time, and North Road West is protected.  Councillor Britter has written expressing concerns of residents – supports what he says, but there is nothing we can do.  Fully supports the proposal, which will be good for the town’s economy, and provide apprenticeships for young people.

 

SW:  cannot agree with JF.  This land is on the edge of the green belt, not a green oasis, but agrees that all this is water under the bridge. Is concerned about the confirmation of the stopping-up order, as detailed on Page 3 of the orange update.  Understood that ‘once a byway, always a byway’, and that stopping up requires agreement of the ODPM and is only done on significant grounds – didn’t think that commercial interest ticks the right boxes here.  Asked under whose authority this path was stopped up, and did it go to the ODPM?

 

BF:  has a few issues with this application.  Firstly, no parking spaces are provided for the workers.  Cotswold BMW is currently situated in SwindonVillage, along with other motor traders, and for many years workers have parked in adjacent supermarket car parks.  They have now been asked to leave, and are therefore filling up private roads from 8.00am till 6.00pm.  There will be very little chance for workers at Grovefield Way BMW to park anywhere but ASDA and B&Q if not on the site; 47 spaces for 200 employees is not sufficient. This is a garage – people will drive to work, and the Green Travel Policy cannot be enforced and isn’t legally binding.  There will be a lot of people needing to park.  Of the 200 jobs, wondered what percentage will be part-time?  Highways has stated that vehicle movements in and out will be less than the original planning permission would have generated.  Also, if the number of jobs per hectare was extended to the whole site, it would produce 800 jobs – we are looking for 21,250 - we would need to tarmac to the M5 to provide this.  This is B1 employment land and needs higher employment density, otherwise we will have to use land protected by the JCS earlier than stated.  A recent briefing note from Officers said that we must try to protect land, but Officers also say that a mixed use development on this site would be hard to resist, given recent changes in legislation. If this is so, it is only a matter of time before there is an application for housing here.  On the subject of job generation, questioned whether the proposed use of the site would be more efficient than the permitted use. 

 

The applicants need to sort out on-site parking – when building, all parking for workers must be on site.  Members need to consider the loss of employment land and should not deviate from the planning permission on green belt.  Asked about cycling and bike storage.  Doesn’t like the proposal.

 

RW:  agrees with BF, but in terms of practical options for the site, this is the least worst option.  Asked the Highways Officer for clarity regarding the Park & Ride – they say the capacity will run out in 2031, and one option is to extend the area, but alternatively, Highways is happy to accept £1/2m towards modal shift.  Is a Park & Ride extension needed or not?   If there is an alternative, would like more explanation about what this is – doesn’t want to build a problem for the future.

 

HM:  carrying on from RW’s point, has serious concerns.  The panel of land in the site has been approved by the Secretary of State for extending the Park & Ride by 220 spaces; the report refers to the land use changing from B1 to sui generis, but in fact it is changing from Park & Ride to sui generis.  Mark Power says the Park & Ride is well used; the applicant refutes this.  On Planning View, the Park & Rise was full.  There is an option to build further Park & Ride on site, but no details of what conditions are needed or what the timescale is.  It would be unwise to turn our backs on the existing facility when the population of Cheltenham and the JCS area is forecast to rise to 2031.  Where will these people park their cars?  Elmbridge Court may never come to existence. The application is prior to an application in respect of the SW Cheltenham Transport Strategy report and the matter and S106 agreement should wait a month then can judge whether this extension should be protected from development.  If this proposal is approved tonight, and it’s later decided that further Park & Ride is needed, where will this go?  If brought forward without the BMW complex, there will be no increase in employment – we are between a rock and a hard place.  The Park & Ride would tick two boxes in the JCS – economic (people coming to Cheltenham for shopping) and environmental.  The final decision is with the Secretary of State, but it is important that Members voice their concerns about the application.

 

LG:  hoped we would have learned from our mistakes regarding loss of this green belt site – we are now hoist by our own petard and have got to get on with it.  On the blue update, the only relative paragraph is No. 11 – the others should have been put forward when the application to develop the site first came up.  Can Officers explain what Paragraph 1 means, particularly the first sentence?  On Planning View, the question of class of use came up, and Members were told that the use wassui generic, not specifically B1, so what will happen when future applications come forward, will we have set a precedent with this application, will others follow the same train?

 

MG, in response:

-          regarding the issue of existing trips vs proposed, said the extant planning permission for B1 use, 22 sq m of office space, would generate 278 vehicle movements in the morning, 603 in the afternoon, while this use will generate 67 vehicle movements in the morning, 53 in the afternoon;

-          regarding parking for the 200 employees,  noted that these are not all full-time positions, and reminded Members that this is no minimum/maximum parking standards under PPG13 – parking is considered on a site by site basis, and it can be assumed that the applicants know their needs better than we do;

-          the applicants are providing 49 spaces, a green travel plan, and £1/2m towards modal shift targets, continuing to promote Cheltenham’s transport strategy of encouraging bikes, buses, walking, car sharing etc;

-          if there are problems with parking in the future, the County Council could put waiting restrictions, residents’ parking schemes etc in place, but the amount of parking currently provided is considered enough;

-          regarding Park & Ride, the land was originally saved for 100 spaces; by 2031 the current capacity will be reached;  Highways officers can only assess the need to the end of 2031 – this is the end of the plan period.  The £1/2m which the applicant provides will help achieve the multi-modal shift targets.  We may be losing 100 Park & Ride spaces but the Travel Plan contributions will off-set that.  

 

MJC, in response:

-          to SW’s comments about the stopping-up order, it is clear from the report that the application was made and determined unopposed four years ago; this is not relative to consideration of this application;

-          to BF’s points, said his comments were essentially similar to LG’s, regarding the future of the site if planning permission is granted;

-          to the comment about the merit of the employment land, said any future applications will be dealt with on their specific merits as will the current one;  this is comparable with the NPPF and Cheltenham Plan, and has no bearing on what happens in future.  Findings will be presented in keeping with employment land position, job creation etc;

-          regarding the blue update, said Paragraphs 1-11 are Councillor Britter’s comments, not the planning officer’s words.  Paragraph 1 refers to the RSS, but Cllr Britter was clearly referring to the JCS here.

 

SW:  cannot handle the Highways Officer’s comments that if it all goes wrong, the County can look at putting in parking restrictions adjacent to the site.  There are major problems in this area, as shown by GCHQ staff.  People don’t want yellow lines and residents’ parking schemes – they want to park outside their homes.  Grovefield Way isn’t suitable for parking, so can’t accept this suggestion in any shape of form.  Regarding the stopping-up order, can show a number of illegal anomalies on a definitive map where by-ways have been stopped up – one runs through the middle of a house in Hatherley!  Not satisfied that this path has been stopped up legally, and would like to check the details.

 

HM:  the Highways Officer said that by 2031, the existing Park & Ride will be full; on the orange update, Page 6, the Highways technical note states that, with growth assumed by the JCS, the Park & Ride will need 220 spaces to maintain all-day vehicle demand, with a gradual move towards that figure over the years.  Confused – can Officers explain?

 

JF:  GCHQ staff using the Park & Ride is a problem, and is being looked at.  Grovefield Way has never had any parking restrictions; Elmbridge Court is on the cards, but when might that happen?

 

BF:  it would be nice to see how the Transport Plan is working in the current premises and other BMW sites in Gloucestershire – do staff use buses and cycles to get to work?  Takes issue with the Highways Officer’s comments – prevention is better than cure, and we are here to prevent problems.  There has been no parking assessment for Elmbridge Court, so that has to be a few years off at least, with no guarantee that it will ever happen.  There has been a lot of talk about ElmbridgeCourt, a new bus station etc, but there is currently no alternative to the Park & Ride used now.  GCHQ staff use it as Park & Walk, and as it is very close to the application site, BMW staff are likely to do the same. 

 

This site is very sensitive – it is green belt and has planning permission for B1 use only.  This application waters it down – the amount of jobs provided would be less than that 500 if the other 83h of land was treated same way, against a need of 21,800.  There are empty sites in Cheltenham for employment land.  Under the JCS, it is virtually impossible to resist a mixed application on this site, for a shop, garage and employment, but the garage only takes up one third of the site and creates less than 50 new jobs.  We are making ourselves available, and a future application for houses will be impossible to resist.

 

MS:  the car park debate is a red herring, and successors will start thinking about doubling the parking capacity on the present site with undercroft parking or an extra level.  GCHQ should also be thinking about it in their grounds – the council should press GCHQ to do this, to do something about the sea of cars at present; they should have gone underground with parking from the start.  Land is finite – we can’t keep spreading to accommodate cars – we have to start stacking them.

 

RW:  only received the committee papers last night, and now that he understands the Highways Officer comments more fully, withdraws his opening remark.  Has no problem with BMW, but this area is reserved for Park & Ride – cannot therefore support the application.  Highways has failed to address the issues and not provided satisfactory answers.  MS talks about undercroft parking, but this costs a fortune, and water drainage issues in this area may well make it impossible anyway, so we cannot hang our hat on this for the future.  Recommends the Secretary of State doesn’t ratify the application.

 

BD:  we have got to start using undercroft and underground parking.  Houses can be built on top.  It may be expensive, but BMW can afford it.

 

LG:  referring back to Paragraph 11 (blue update), are we going to get a response on why the Inspector’s decision has not been taken into consideration?  Is he right in thinking that Grovefield Way is part of the south-west distributary road, built in 1991?  Is it subject to parking restrictions?  It would be very odd to see cars parked here.  Is there an unwritten restriction, or the possibility that some parking can take place there?

 

MJC, in response:

-          LG’s and RW’s points are similar, regarding the approach of the County Council and how Officers have taken into account the Park & Ride part of the outline permission;

-          the recommendation hasn’t been arrived at lightly, with numerous discussions with the applicant regarding the fundamental issue of the loss of the Park & Ride.  Highways concerns have been mitigated by the S106 agreement of a £503k transport contribution;

-          if permission is granted, the land will go, but the County is satisfied that the contribution can mitigate the effect, moving towards a modal shift;

-          this is a reasonable approach, and the result of substantial negotiation; fundamentally, the loss of the Park & Ride doesn’t outweigh the benefits the scheme will bring, including the S106 contribution;

-          to LG, said again that Paragraph 11 on the blue update is the words of Cllr Britter, and the Inspector’s decision was fundamental to consideration of the application; County considers that, with mitigation, and Park & Ride extension can be lost;

-          to BF’s comments about watering down the planning permission and potential for a mixed use application, covered this is his initial response, and reminded Members that all applications are considered on their merits; this isn’t an application for B1 use, and is analysed in detail in the report;

-          our own policy EM2(c)recommends use  for car sales as an alternative to employment land, as it generates jobs; this use is compliant with the Local Plan, and doesn’t water down the original consent;

-          future applications on the other parcels of land will be determined on their own merits.

 

MG, in response:

-          echoes MJC’s points regarding the S106 contribution, saying that a high contribution was taken for the ASDA application, and date shows a massive modal shift, with people using buses, walking and cycling.  Green initiatives often carry a stigma – ‘it won’t work’ – but this isn’t true;

-          there is a condition for the developer to provide a transport plan, showing exactly how 49 people are parking at any one time – if they are parking on the roads and there is no modal shift, CBC will take enforcement action, but it is anticipated that there will be car sharing, buses, walking and cycling;

-          highways officers had long discussions with transport consultants, who provided a lot of information to show how the 49 spaces would work;

-          regarding his earlier comment on waiting restrictions, this got lost in translation – was not suggesting double yellow lines everywhere.  The County can look at introducing restrictions, if necessary;

-          the County is aware of GCHQ staff using the Park & Ride and agrees that this isn’t ideal.  It is being looked at by the parking team, and if an alternative is found, the capacity of the Park & Ride will increase;

-          regarding Elmbridge Court, there is no planning application yet, but funding from the Department for Transport is agreed and a planning application is anticipated in early 2014, with a completion target date of 2016;

-          regarding the Park & Ride capacity by 2031, this is the end of the development plan period.  There may be 100 lost spaces, but GCHQ won’t be using it, and the S106 payment will be used to encourage car sharing, walking and cycling.  The transport study of the area was accepted by the Inspector , and 10% of the S106 money can be used for this  Officers had detailed discussions with the applicants to ensure safe access;

-          the S106 contribution and study of the effects once built out should mitigate the effects of the development satisfactorily.

 

RW:  thanked Officers for this clarity. Regarding the Park & Ride, it appears that the County doesn’t know how to spend the £503k contribution and hopes that as a result of the transport study it will find out.  Commended the County on Monday, but in this situation, the County needs to treat CBC like adults and explain what will be the possibility of solutions which actually work – the £503k is taken on trust that it will provide solutions which work, but cannot buy into this.

 

BF:  if we are going to take the JCS seriously, every application must be considered on its merits.  This site is the largest green field B1 site in the borough; every time another green field site is used, applicants want a bespoke scheme. If he was a developer looking to build round Cheltenham – and with the JCS, there are a lot of these coming – he would have said this is B1 land and there is no chance, but now this is being diluted. If this is followed across the entire 83h of land earmarked for employment, we will be very, very short of employment land. This makes the credibility of the JCS look very weak, if there is no way of restoring this to B1.  The applicant had to go to appeal to get permission, and we are rolling over and allowing a garage, with a fraction of the jobs of B1 use, and it shouldn’t be forgotten that jobs generate the need for houses.  Regarding the Park & Ride, there is no guarantee that Elmbridge Court will be built.

 

SW:  on the question of parking, GCHQ built the maximum number of parking spaces allowed by law at that time – 40%.  Since then, there has been a massive problem with them trying to find additional spaces.  Some staff use the Park & Ride and pay for this, which Is permissible, but others don’t.  If Highways say they can’t prevent people using the Park & Ride, where will GCHQ staff park – Grovefield Way?  This doesn’t solve the problem.  If the Park & Ride is full, whether with people going to town or GCHQ staff, we will need more space.  Cannot support this application – people need to park somewhere and it is better here than on residential streets.

 

LG:  still looking for a response to his second question – is there a parking restriction on the SW distributary road, of which Grovefield Way is one part?  In view of comments made, we need to be clear where we stand regarding parking on that road.

 

PT:  wasn’t going to speak but is horrified by the discussion so far.  If we take away Park & Ride spaces and throw people out of there, where will they go?  Parking is a real problem in Benhall – a nightmare, with one particularly dangerous corner.  This problem needs to be looked at in the round and must be sorted to make the application and the situation viable.

 

TC, in response:

-          to clarify some issues about the status of the site, extant permission, and green belt, this site is not identified by the JCS as a strategic allocation for housing, employment or anything else.  There is a commitment for it to be developed for employment use, which has been planned for in the context of the JCS.  The suggestion that if part of the site is used for the garage, other schemes for housing will be difficult to resist is unfounded.  The Inspector was clear why development of this land in the green belt was necessary – at the time Cheltenham has a severe deficit of employment land coming forward, and that situation is now worse;

-          the JCS looks at strategic employment provision.  We need to deliver on commitments we already have, and this scheme will trigger more use of the land to come forward;

-          regarding the business sector, garages fall into this category, and BMW is a key site in Cheltenham.  The proposal will create some new jobs, and benefit from rationalisation of the sites.  Also to be considered is the site on Tewkesbury Road, which will become vacant and could be taken by another car dealership, thus creating more jobs;

-          the proposal is compatible with policy EM2;

-          to concerns about highways and transport advice, the S106 requires a significant transport contribution.  Not all the answers are there, but the key elements will be in the modal shift.  The Park & Ride and other transport issues will be looked at and transport colleagues will do work to identify which interventions are required the most.

 

MG, in response:

-          to LG’s question about Grovefield Way, there are no parking restrictions, but it would be mad to park here. 

 

KS:  it has been an interesting debate – had been unsure how to vote when reading the papers.  There are good economic benefits, but a major issue of the loss of the Park & Ride extension potential.  The Cheltenham Transport Plan consultation showed that people want improvements to the Park & Ride, including its location, possibly nearer to town – not sure if this would be the right place.  Uses the route often and has noted heavy congestion at times at the B&Q roundabout since ASDA opened.  Noted the significant contribution to the modal shift – it is important to know how this will be spent.  For example, someone going to the tip cannot use the bus, but has to use a car.  GCHQ and other issues also need to be sorted out, but these are not related to this application and it is unfair to the applicant to make them so.  The scheme doesn’t look bad, but is worried about the traffic and still not sure which way to vote.

 

CC:  Members have been discussing this application for over an hour, with a good exchange of questions and answers.  Noted some negativity from some Members – is there a move to refuse -if so, on what grounds? – or to defer due to anxiety about the Park & Ride?

 

HM:  has searched the NPPF and Local Plan and can see no reason to refuse the application, but will abstain from the vote, due to concerns.

 

BD:  what difference will it make if the decision is deferred?

 

CC:  Members may feel they would benefit from more information from Highways on the Park & Ride situation – suggests this as something to be considered.

 

RW:  happy to defer to HM’s comment about the NPPF, but would propose deferral to allow the opportunity for a more joined-up picture from the County regarding how the modal shift can be achievable.  Also, the applicants might want to consider whether they have gone for the right part of the site.

 

LG:  the only sensible reason to defer would be to find out if there is some portion of land to extend the Park & Ride site, but this is not an option.  We cannot take a slice of land from the potential developer, so there is no point in deferral.  We need to agree or refuse.

 

BF:  regarding deferral, this site was going to include a Park & Ride - is the applicant prepared to allow Park & Ride to be relocated in the site?  The applicant must make it clear what the current green travel plan is. If the point of the planning application was for 200 extra Park & Ride spaces, there would still be room on site for this. 

 

JF:  this is most extraordinary, following months of negotiations.  If Members refuse, can the Secretary of State overrule them?  There are no planning reasons why we can refuse.

 

SW: would have liked to vote against this proposal, but will go along with deferral as there is no satisfactory answer regarding the public right of way.

 

MJC, in response:

-          if the application is deferred, Officers can look at a few points, such as how the County will look to achieve the modal shift, and approach the developer regarding alternative uses of the site.  Knows the answer to that question, so the only thing to be achieved by deferral is therefore further clarity from the County;

-          to JF’s question about the Secretary of State issue, if planning permission is refused, this will not be a departure from the Local Plan, and therefore will not need to be considered by the Secretary of State, although the applicant will have the right of appeal.  If the committee decision is contrary to advice from Highways experts, there will be very little evidence to back this up, making it risky;

-          if Members are nervous about permitting the scheme, they should vote to defer.

 

BD:  has been on Planning Committee for 14 years, and is disappointed by the mess it gets itself into these days – frightened of saying no to a proposal, deferring, and then all saying yes next time.  Planning Committee isn’t working as well as it used to.

 

Vote of RW’s move to defer

4 in support

7 in objection

3 abstentions

MOTION LOST

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

6 in support

3 in objection

5 abstentions

PERMIT

 

CC: this was a very good airing of a significant application on a significant site, with many good points raised.