Agenda item

 

Application Number:			13/00756/FUL
Location:	Leckhampton Industrial Estate, Leckhampton Road, Cheltenham
Proposal:	Demolition of existing buildings and residential development comprising the construction of 28 dwellings
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit subject to S106 contribution and with amendment to Condition 27
Committee Decision:			Permit subject to S106 contribution
Letters of Rep:		31 + petition			Update Report:	Officer comments, recommendation and conditions (circulated Wednesday) and additional representations

 

Cllr Driver left the Chamber for the consideration of this item

 

Introduction

WH described the proposal, which will involve demolition of existing buildings and remedial work round the existing land levels.  A viability assessment has been done, with an affordable housing provision of 10%. 

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Bastin Bloomfield, local resident, in objection

Introduced himself to Members as a resident of Collum End Rise, a registered architect and a corporate member of RIBA.  Favours and supports appropriate development of the site, but not in its current form.  The Design & Access Statements says levels to the north of the site will be reduced to minimise impact on existing properties - this is not shown on the plans, and although the report notes a reduction on site levels of 2.5m, this occurs in a limited area on the far boundary.  Despite the offer of access, the applicant has never viewed the site from any gardens other than 61 Collum End Rise to asses the impact of level changes, and the garden of 51 Collum End Rise is 2.4m higher than 61.  Members will have noted on Planning View that the existing bank, at 5.2m, is significant before a three-storey building as put on the top.  Key factors from the Garden Land SPG have not been addressed such as impact on neighbours’ amenity due to layout, scale and massing.  Twelve family homes and gardens, currently enjoyed by 43 residents, will be directly impacted by the proposals. They are not suggesting no development and recognise the importance of providing houses, but object to the dominating visual impact and significant loss of sun and daylight and its consequences, due to orientation and level changes.  The proposals are large executive properties on small plots; due to the height difference, this is equivalent to a five-storey house 2m off his garden fence.  More appropriately-sized properties and a better housing mix can ameliorate this detrimental impact.  Asks Members to be happy all material considerations and relevant matters have been taken into account before they make their decision, and not to underestimate the significant loss of light and overbearing visual impact that neighbours will have to live with as a result of their decision. As a professional, can see what this scheme will do and, as a resident, is horrified.

 

Mr Alex Scott, applicant, in support

Spoke as a representative of the applicant, Martin ScottHomes, and did not want to reiterate what is in the report, but to provide background information.  The applicants are a Cheltenham-based company, twenty years in the property business, and care about the town.  They had a pre-app consultation in October 2012, and following design review meetings, and a public consultation in April, submitted their application in May 2013.  The consultation had involved neighbours, residents, officers and other consultees, and a significant number of amendments were made in response to concerns from officers, including lowering the land levels, removal of a house adjacent to Collum End Rise, review of access arrangements, change to the mix of houses and their architectural style, a SUDS scheme, taking into account comments from Highways, Land Contamination, Natural England, Trees officers, planning officers. The development will enhance the gateway to the town along Leckhampton Road.

 

 

Member debate:

HM:  notes a lot of objections to the scheme on the grounds of the SPD on Garden Land and Infill Sites, yet this is not referred to in the officer report – why not?  The previous debate was very concerned with the loss of employment land in the borough, but how many jobs will be affected by this proposal and what can be done to help those employees find alternative work?

 

AC:  has a number of concerns. 

(1)    the site is currently a working area in the borough.  The landlord has allowed it to deteriorate so no new tenants are coming forward, but there are still a few tenants and a number of jobs – and there could be more if the site was improved.  The JCS requires a lot of jobs in Cheltenham, but here we are taking away an area which provides employment;

(2)    the gym is the only one in South Cheltenham and is used by a large number of local people, particularly the elderly. Its removal will cause a lot of inconvenience for them, as shown by the petitions which demonstrate the strong local feeling;

(3)    the loss of amenity for residents in Collum End Rise.  Members saw this on Planning View, and although it is not our job to think about loss of views and reduced property value, they should consider what it will be like to have a view of Leckhampton Hill replaced with red brick;

(4)    regarding the provision of 10% social housing – is aware that our policy is for 40% and not one application has come anywhere near this.  We should put our foot down over this;

(5)    is the proposal to re-house the bats realistic?

(6)    the officer report talks about the developer agreeing to assist the scout group with an application to redevelop the scout hut – but there is no condition concerning this, and it seems more like a vague promise;

(7)    if the developer had come forward and offered to redevelop the scout hut and the gym, he could have supported the proposal, but as it stands, cannot do so.

 

KS:  also has a number of concerns, some of which she discussed with officers before the start of the meeting.

(1)     is very concerned about the loss of employment land, which Cheltenham is terrible at protecting.  We seem to have a schizophrenic attitude here, holding on to employment land with terrible access, but letting to with casual abandon sites which provide important amenity for local people;

(2)     another fundamental and important concern is the viability of the scheme.  There is no contribution to education, yet this part of town in attractive to families – all the schools are over-subscribed, and there was only one space left on Allocation Day.  A site like this isn’t viable if it doesn’t make any contribution to education – therefore this site is not viable.  These are family homes – where will the children go to school?

(3)     the impact on residential amenity is another concern.  Knows the site well, and the levels vary greatly.  Homes and gardens adjacent to the boundary on the south side will feel very enclosed and unpleasant.  This should have been addressed with revisions of the plan.  Why couldn’t the proposed dwellings be bungalows – this would solve the levels issue and the education issue in one;

(4)     notes that these are very urban-looking houses on the edge of the AONB – another cause for concern;

(5)     finally, notes the update states there will be one house with social rent, but understood that the council had signed up for affordable rent, 80% of the market value.  This will be very expensive for a four-bedroomed house.  How has this happened?

 

MS:  if this proposal is permitted, the developer will have to take away huge amounts of spoil – earth and gravel – from across the whole site.  Condition 3 needs to include an assurance that a route has been agreed with the local authority, to ensure that lorry-loads of earth won’t be driven through small roads and estates.  Has anyone told the bats they are getting a new home?

 

LG:  asked questions about this unusual site on Planning View, and has listened to the comments in support and objection.  Reiterates the point raised by KS – why not build bungalows here?  - and regarding land levels, can the reduction of 1.5m be increased to mitigate the overlooking and other issues put forward.  Would have difficulty finding sound planning reasons to refuse this scheme, but feels it could be made a good deal better than it is.

 

PT:  following AC’s comment about the scout hut, can this be made a condition?  Remembers another developer promising a cycle track but not following through.  If it isn’t included as a condition, the chances are it won’t be done.  Is intrigued by the business of light, shadow and shade – imagining the site as it is, presumably some of the existing trees are as tall or taller than the proposed buildings and cast shade and shadow on neighbouring properties.  New trees can be grown to shield the site from existing houses - they will still be cheek by jowl, and existing residents will have to put up with having people over the fence which will be difficult for them when they have enjoyed privacy for so long.  Unfortunately, however, in the real world, other people want to live in this area.

 

GB:  aware that this particular area has flooded in the past, and is concerned about mitigation.  The report refers to land drainage on Page 87 and to a drain being fitted, but would like to see a greater amount of certainty.  Cannot see any information about wants clarification about what has satisfied the Land Drainage officer.

 

BF:  is in favour of the proposal, which makes good use of a site which has been a mess for a long time.  Many of the units are empty and would require major reconstruction to open as employment units.  The proposed scheme is well laid out, with good provision for cars.  The existing trees must cause as much shading than the new properties, which are, strictly speaking, two storeys high, with velux windows in the roof – not three-storey houses.  It is a good lay-out for the area, close to the town centre, shops, bus routes, Leckhampton Hill etc, and makes good use of the site which is decrepit and Victorian.  There are plenty of small industrial units where current businesses can relocated.  Building houses close to town is good.  The houses are well designed, the report sets out the case well, and the bats will enjoy rent-free social housing.

 

WH, in response:

-          regarding the Garden Land SPD, this isn’t specifically mentioned in the report but is inherently so – amenity is considered throughout the report, and officers feel that the scheme is compliant with the SPD;

-          regarding the loss of employment land and policy EM2 of the Local Plan, the scheme was considered against this and considered to comply with (b) the retention of the site for employment purposes has been fully explored without success.  Marketing information was submitted with the application which was reviewed by Policy colleagues; they were satisfied with it.  Also, Paragraphs 22 and 31 of the NPPF, say planners should approve residential use where there is a need for additional housing in an area, and as Members know, it is an established fact that we have a 5-year housing land shortfall;

-          regarding the impact on the AONB, the site is undesignated, though adjacent to the AONB on the western boundary.  The landscape architect has reviewed the application and not raised any objections on those grounds.  She has been involved in the landscape scheme and this will be secured by condition;

-          regarding loss of amenity, when this is assessed, the impact on daylight, overshadowing, loss of privacy etc are all looked at via scientific calculations, including the 25^o and 45^o rule for adjacent buildings, shadowing at key points of the year, and distance between buildings all taken into account.  This proposal exceeds all requirements regarding Collum End Rise.  It is a unique site regarding land levels, with a significant difference on the Collum End Rise side, but it should be remembered that it is a site on the side of a hill.  The matter of amenity was carefully looked at, calculations were applied, and the scheme exceeded requirements;

-          regarding the 10%/40% affordable housing provision, the application was submitted with a viability study which was assessed by the DVS, who are independent land valuers for the public sector.  The blue update sets out their conclusions that the scheme is unviable at 40%, 20% and 10%, but the applicant is prepared to include 10% affordable housing.

 

KS: reiterated her Point 5 (above) - how will the affordable housing be delivered in line with the affordable rent statement we are signed up to?  Affordable rent is set locally, and will be high in Leckhampton.

 

MSt, in response:

-          is KS concerned about affordable rent on a three-bedroomed or four-bedroomed house?

 

KS:  concerned about how it will be delivered.

 

MSt, in response:

-          this will be through an Registered Provider.

 

WH, in response (contd):

-          regarding bats, the County ecologist looked at the site and identified two species here – the natter and the lesser horseshoe – roosting in an underground bunker.  Having done extensive work on bats and working with the applicant, the proposal is for a strategically located new bat roost on their foraging path, where there is a good chance that they will use it.  The ecologist is happy that these mitigation measures are adequate.  A number of conditions have been suggested, including an S106 agreement about ownership and long-term maintenance of the bat and bird boxes, so their long-term protection is secure, possibly more so as a result of the proposal than their current situation;

-          regarding the scout hut, this is not material to consideration of the application, but the applicant has had discussions with the scout group and made a goodwill offer.  This arose out of the consultation process in April, where it was clear that this is what the very proactive local community want to see.  Although it isn’t a material consideration, the applicant is present at the meeting and will note the importance which Members attach to this;

-          regarding the transportation of earth and spoil, after Planning View, asked PS to attend Committee to deal with this question, and the matter of contaminated land.

 

PS, in response:

-          regarding the site, have advised a condition to ensure that any investigated land be assessed for contamination. As part of the proposal, a materials management plan will be submitted, providing information about where the spoil will be going, but the authority has no control over routing of lorries.  Any contaminated material will have to be taken to an appropriate site

 

WH, in response (contd):

-          regarding the site levels, the site has been subject to a lot of landfill over the years, and part of the planning application will lower the levels and reduce the impact on Collum End Rise and Liddington Close. The distance and daylight requirements have been exceeded, and it would be difficult to secure these at lower levels; 

-          regarding flooding, there is a history of flooding and problems with surface water at the site.  Initially a drainage system was proposed to alleviate this, and the Land Drainage Officer’s first comments were based on this.  This went back to the applicants, who subsequently proposed a sustainable urban drainage solution with an attenuation tank in the corner.  The Land Drainage Officer is happy with this;

-          regarding trees, there are a lot of existing trees on adjacent land, and CC will comment.

 

CC, in response:

-          confirmed that there are a lot of adjacent trees and many of these will be retained.  New trees to be planted on the north side of the site are small and appropriate to the size of garden.  Has asked for an understory of evergreen – holly, bay – to act as an evergreen screen in the winter months, and to encourage householders to remove the fence;  has asked for further evergreen trees at the front – a particular form of spineless holly with berries;

-          overall is happy with the scheme.  There could be problems with the soil – additional top soil will be needed – but the new trees are appropriate species and should establish and thrive;

-          the largest trees are not within the site, therefore outside the sphere of the developer. 

 

WH, in response (contd)

-          there is a mistake on Condition 27 on the blue update, which should reference obscure glazing in house types FI and I only.  These are bathroom windows.

 

SW:  as a point of information, a right of way for access through the site to the hall is mentioned in the report – could officers indicate where this in on the plan?

 

WH, in response:

-          this access remains as existing – a footpath off the main access.  People will walk up the front of the development to the scout hut, following the red line on the drawing.

 

LG:  asked whether bungalows on the Collum End Rise side were suggested or discussed at pre-app stage.

 

WH, in response:

-          pre-app discussions concerned issues of amenity, and didn’t specifically suggest any bungalows on the site. The position of the buildings, height, fenestration were considered, with a general level of advice – no particular architectural style was proposed or rejected.  It is not for planners to evolve or propose a development but to consider what comes before them.

 

KS:  moved to refuse the application, the main reasons being that it is contrary to EM2, and concern that a message be sent to owners that they cannot allow their premises to become dilapidated in order to realise a scheme.  We need to be firm here.  Surprised by BF’s comments following on from his comments about Grovefield Way, as these patches of employment land all add up and are important to local communities.  Also suggested CP4 as a refusal reason – impact on neighbouring properties, particularly to do with the difference in land levels; the impact of the two-storey houses would be significant, and PT was right – people do live cheek by jowl these days but not 5m higher than their neighbours’ gardens.

 

PSt, in response regarding employment land:

-          with regard to EM2, the land here has been identified as a steeply sloping site, which reduces the accessibility and usefulness of some units. The strategic land use team looked at the site prior to the application, and were keen to be sure that there was sufficient marketing over a sufficient period of time, to ensure the evidence was robust and ongoing.  They are satisfied that there was a sufficient attempt to market the site, but bearing in mind the limitations, and the design and age of the units, it would be hard to do anything with the buildings of this type and scale;

-          there is a distinction between loss of employment site with the potential for significant reorganisation and the ones limited by nature to buildings on site but can reasonably accommodate a modest development;

-          if the proposal is refused, there is potential that the NPPF Para 22 would come into play, giving rise to questions over the site’s long term viability.

 

AC:  if the application was for building new offices for a technical park, would have no objection. 

 

TC, in response:

-          this is an interesting point.  This area is part of South Cheltenham under the JCS, and Gloucestershire First, our economic partners, take the view that sites on this side of town cause significant difficulties.  If a new site was proposed in this area, its attractiveness would be limited, due to connectivity issues, and looking at the site on its merits, this must be taken into account.

 

AC:  what is a connectivity issue? People can walk to this site.

 

RW:  has listened with interest to the debate, and found it hard to form an opinion but has done so now.  To begin with, listed on the KS and AC side, with concerns about affordable housing, change of use, industrial going to residential, overlooking issues, but all these arguments have been demolished during the debate.  If this was a blank sheet of paper, would we put an industrial estate here?  It lends itself to residential.  Disappointed with the 10% social housing but has to accept officer advice, and Members should think through at a strategic and policy level if the JCS would work on this basis.  Is coming more and more to the view that this site is suitable for residential.  Aware of calculations regarding overlooking, but must assume these have been done correctly and are acceptable. 

 

BF:  Mead Road causes problems as do other small industrial estates in residential areas, with large lorries and other traffic.  Regarding affordable housing, this has to be addressed by the JCS – over 60% of applications on green field sites do not come through with correct affordable housing in line with the Local Plan.  Developers are circumnavigating requirements, all over the country, not just in Cheltenham.

 

KS:  the issue is not just about overlooking.  It is the bulk, scale and mass of buildings at the end of gardens, on a bank, 5m high.  CP4(a) and also CP7(c)are appropriate refusal reasons too, due to different land levels.  The trading estate is of value to the local people, the gym is popular and well-used.  This is not the right scheme for this site.  It could be residential but not these plans.  This is over-development, and will have an adverse effect on neighbours.

 

WH, in response:

-          the gym does not fall foul of EM2 – it is a leisure use, not an employment use.

 

 

Vote on KS’s move to refuse on EM2, CP4(a) and CP7(c)

2 in support

12 in objection

0 abstentions

PERMIT with amendment to Condition 27