Agenda item

Councillor Driver and Councillor Sudbury left the Chamber for this debate (see above)

MJC introduced the application, and reminded Members of the recent history of the site:  there is an extant permission for development by St Vincent’s, but this is an altogether different scheme

Public Speaking:

Mr David Ellis, Chief Executive of National Star Foundation, in support

Introduced himself to Members, and is speaking personally in support of this application, because it is so important.  The report is thorough and clear, explaining the background, the existing permission, and how this scheme is a great improvement on it – a well-considered solution for a sensitive site, next to Pittville Park and in the conservation area.  National Star has worked carefully with consultees, designers, users and stake-holders, and proposal is fully compliant with planning policy.  Explained why this proposal is so important to the wider social benefit of those people with disabilities who use NSF’s specialist provision.   National Star is a Gloucestershire-based charity, established over 45 years ago, and providing specialist education, personal development, residential and other services for young people and adults with complex disabilities and severe disabilities.  Its work is excellent and nationally significant, judged in 2012 to be outstanding by OFSTED, and recognised by the Care Quality Commission for its quality and standard of services.  The work and plans for this site have been endorsed by the Education Funding Agency on behalf of the Department of Education, through the exceptional commitment of £2.2m towards this specialist facility.  It will provide a safe and supported environment for young people with disabilities to practice and develop essential skills for their future adult lives, including access to education, employment for training, or simply to communicate, gain freedom, and manage everyday tasks, which promote equality and allow them to be active members of society.

Compared with the previous scheme, the two-storey element to West Drive is in line with street scene, with a smaller overall footprint and mass; smaller buildings, more dispersed throughout site, improve the view through the site, and landscaping acts as a transition between the  school, park and surrounding residential area. The proposal will meet highly-specialised requirements, and provide an outstanding resource, enabling young people and adults with disabilities to be embraced as part of their community. The life-enhancing outcomes will be widespread, from the proximity to PittvillePark and ease of access to the town centre and wider facilities on offer in Cheltenham.  Is grateful for feedback, time and advice received, and hopes Members will support the scheme.

Member debate:

JF:  applauds all the work done by the National StarCollege, but voted against the previous application on this site, which was opposed by the Conservation and Heritage Officer and by English Heritage.  This proposal is better, but English Heritage is still against it.  Expects it will go through, but will vote against it and wants to state her position:  it is adjacent to the listed PittvillePark and opposed by English Heritage; while applauding all the work done by the NSC, her objection is to the siting of this proposal, not to the applicants themselves.

RG:  cannot agree with JF, and would like to see a condition making it compulsory for residents to take advantage of Pittville Park.  It is so busy, even at Christmas, and the more people who use it, the more diverse they are, the better.  Urges CBC and NSC to make access to the Park as easy as possible and encourage residents to use it. 

BF:  has read all the letters of support, and believes that Cllr Rawson’s letter sums up all the reasons why Members should support this application.  He (Cllr Rawson) has been involved with this site from the beginning, when the land was turned into a wildlife garden for Dunalley School.  The previous application was for a very good cause, and this is an ideal place for people to live, giving them easy access to town and the chance to integrate in society, rather than be isolated.  With the Park on the doorstep, this is a good 21^st century design – not Georgian in style, but suitable for the area.  It is an excellent application.

PH:  voted against the previous proposal and was dismayed when it went through – the wildlife garden was enchanting, the back of the proposed buildings backed on to the Park, the service areas were visible from the Park, and it was altogether too intrusive.  However, the principle of building on this site is clearly established, this scheme is a great improvement, and the NSC does such worthwhile work.  Will vote for the proposal – Dunalley School has established a new wildlife garden, and although sad to see the land that was allotments years ago go, this scheme is excellent.

PJ:  the application is good, and the best outcome for the community in the area.  The report gives clarity of the Heritage and Conservation Officer’s position.  Agrees with RG that access to the Park should be all-inclusive.

LG:  looked at all the letters of representation, which were pretty much 50/50 for and against – so not much help to Planning Committee Members.  Voted against the previous application on the basis that PittvillePark is very well known and listed, and would suffer because of the construction nearest to the Park, but was in favour of the single-storey buildings.  This application is for two-storey buildings, and is mindful of KR’s objections and recommendation to refuse the previous application – great play was made of the prominent location of the proposal, its visibility from the Park, its proximity to the pathways, and effect on long-distance views.  These were all reasons for refusal on single-storey buildings, so is surprised that there is no update on these matters in this report.  Realises that there will be something built on this site, but does not feel two storeys are the best idea. 

Another issue for objectors is the question of noise and whether the amenity of the residents of West Drive will be affected once the building is up and running.  Notes there are quotations from the NPPF in the report, but not to Paragraph 123, which states that steps should be taken to avoid noise from giving rise to any significant adverse impact on the health, tranquillity, recreational and amenity value of an area. 

Having considered these objections, has looked back to the 50/50 representations, noting many in support of the NSC and its work.  Understands and admires the College and what it does, but the fact that it does worthwhile work for people with disabilities and learning difficulties should not be the point on which we take a decision.  The same argument was made for the YMCA, when the possibility of the problem of noise was taken into account and conditions attached.  There is a suggested condition for external users of the facility, but it could be difficult to extricate external users from residents, so why not have a set cut-off time for all users?  If the condition only applies to someone hiring the room out, residents could continue till 1 o’clock in the morning.  Does not feel the issue of noise has been properly grasped.  Officers may say that, until the building is up and running, the potential noise issue cannot be assessed, but this isn’t right. 

Will vote against the proposal on account of the two-storey construction and the noise issue, unless the debate convinces him otherwise.

AM:  disagrees with LG.  Planning permission has already been granted on this site, for a similar use and a similar number of people.  Voted in support last time and will do so again.  If this proposal is turned down today, what will have been achieved?  The original application can still be built.  The standard noise considerations which apply to any residential unit in the area will apply here, so there is no advantage in turning it down on noise grounds.  On the question of whether this scheme is an improvement on the previous one, says yes, it is:  it makes better use of the environment, the relationship with PittvillePark is improved, there are more breaks in the buildings, more greenspace looking through the site.  Will support this proposal with more enthusiasm than he supported the previous scheme.

PT:  is amazed at the concentration on the issue of noise.  Is there a noise problem with St Vincent’s School, or with children playing outside at Dunalley School?  This application is for residential accommodation for disabled people, and if there is any problem of noise from the communal room, Environmental Health officers will intervene, as they would if any resident of West Drive had a noisy party.  Has read all the letters of representation carefully, and thinks some of the comments are crazy.  This scheme is a huge improvement on the previous one, slightly sunken into the ground, further back from the road, making use of the downward slope of the land.  Does not consider it will cause any problem.  Will vote in support.

BF:  is amazed that people are preoccupied by the prospect of a modern building adjacent to Pittville Park.  Leisure@ is close by, as are several modern blocks of flats.  Dunalley School holds events in its hall which generate noise, Pittville Pump Room is an events venue, and noise from events at the racecourse can be heard all over Cheltenham – this is part of living in an urban area.  Lives adjacent to Bournside School, and experiences both noise and light pollution at times.

RG:  wants to be forceful in his support of this application, as some Members are saying they will not vote for it, or abstain.  Yes, there will be some times when there is more noise – on a summer evening, for example – the view from Pittville Park will be affected, and life will change in the area, but will this be so bad that the proposal should be refused?  Is sure the NSC will be horrified if noise becomes an issue, and has undoubtedly considered the matter.  In situations where opinion is divided 50/50 and Members find it difficult to make up their minds, considers they should follow the officer’s advice – this is why we pay them.  There is no great deal with noise here – if it becomes a problem, Environmental Health will get involved.  Will be proud to approve the scheme; enjoys the Park and wants disabled people to be able to enjoy it too.  We should support the proposal.

MS:  voted against the previous scheme, but this is infinitely better – will vote in support this time.  Is quite relaxed about the two-storey buildings - they are facing other two-storey buildings and won’t compromise the Park.  Had concerns about the communal room similar to LG’s, and thinks conditions should be included, for an 11 o’clock close-down, though would prefer that this be purely for residents’ use, and not hired out to external bodies.

KR, in response:

-          referring to her recommendation on the previous scheme, confirmed that she was opposed to the principle of building here and to the details of the design, but the proposal was approved and due attention must be given to that;

-          doesn’t recall if English Heritage officers commented on the design of the previous scheme – an inspector from English Heritage had been in Cheltenham on another matter, walked round the site with KR and given the proposal some consideration, but does not think those comments were recorded;

-          parks are listed like buildings, and Pittville Park is a Grade II listed park.  English Heritage did not consider it would be much harmed by the previous proposal, but have now reorganised and only comment on Grade 1 listed parks;

-          the principle of building here has been established, and the design of this scheme is much better than the previous.  Had some reservations about the two-storey element, but Paragraph 134 of the NPPF states that where a development will cause ‘less than substantial harm’ to a heritage asset, this must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal – and the particular use of the proposed building is very much a public benefit;

-          in view of there being an extant permission, and the current proposal being better than that, is in support of the scheme. 

MJC, in response:

-          regarding the issue of noise, Block B is essentially a common room for users of the site, its size and footprint very much an ancillary part of the development.  It is roughly the size of a triple garage – not huge – and although there has been a lot of concern locally about noise, the Environmental Health team has been involved at length, leading to the decision to include a condition restricting its use for external users, but in view of its size and position, do not feel it necessary to restrict its use for residents on site.  Condition 12 relates to outside groups, restricting use from 9am to 11pm;

-          it is quite common for school halls to be used by external groups and is up to the applicant to manage this.  The suggested condition is reasonable, precise, enforceable, and can be monitored.  Noise levels should not be a problem, due to the small-scale nature of the building and its position on the site;

-          the use of Paragraph 123 of the NPPF would be out of context here, as it is concerned with the natural advise – would advise caution about using it;

-          Local Plan policy CP4 deals with amenity, and the question to ask is whether this proposal will cause unacceptable harm to neighbouring amenity.  Environmental Health do not consider it will and it would be very difficult to demonstrate;

-          this is set out on Page 114 of the officer report, at point 7.4.

JF:  has listened to everyone, and now accepts that this is a different application to the last, and that the principle of building on this site has been established.  Has been persuaded – will vote in support.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

11 in support

1 in objection

0 abstentions

PERMIT