Agenda item

 

Application Number:			13/01683/REM
Location:	GCHQ Oakley, Priors Road, Cheltenham
Proposal:	Approval of reserved matters pursuant to Outline Planning permission ref: CB11954/43 and ref:01/00637/CONDIT for the erection of 311 dwellings and associated roads, footways, parking, landscaping, drainage and public open space.
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Approval of reserved matters, subject to conditions
Committee Decision:			Defer
Letters of Rep:		19	Update Report:		None

 

CH introduced the application as described above.  The outline application was originally submitted in 1999, with an S106 agreement attached, and was followed by an application to extend the time period to 2016. The Phase 1 REM application was approved in 2006, including the supermarket, and Phase 2 in 2007.  The proposed dwellings range from one to five bedrooms, and from two to three storeys, with some apartments included.  The proposed finish is brick and/or render, with main access via Hales Road, and access to 40 dwellings at the top of the site via Harp Hill.

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Darren Beer, agent for applicant, in support

Told Members a full suite of pre-app discussions took place in May 2013, with CBC, GCC, the Civic Society and the Architects’ Panel.  CBC urban design team welcomed the design, the Civic Society gave a positive response, and the Architects’ Panel is comfortable with the masterplan with regard to principle, density and relationship to the AONB among other things.  The design and lay-out of the masterplan has been incorporated, including better connections, but the density has been reduced, with 20dph on land adjacent to the AONB, and 40dph further into the site, averaging at 30dph in total.  There is amenity green space for recreation and to assist with surface water, TPO’d trees are retained, an over-provision of car parking, ten car-parking spaces retained for allotments, as required by CBC, and secondary and tertiary streets incorporated.  A bus route has been agreed with GCC, there is full access for emergency services, and landscaping and green connections are all in place.  The design of the buildings is a mix of traditional, modern and contemporary, using locally requisitioned materials.

 

Councillor Colin Hay, on behalf of local residents

Would like some more in-depth answer to questions – the reason he is addressing Committee. The outline permission was given a long time ago and things have moved on since then.  Residents of Priors Road are very worried about the impact of the proposal on the junction with Priors Road, in addition to concerns about the impact on the Hales Road/London Road and Priors Road/Prestbury Road junctions.  Recalls the decision on the Starvehall Farm application and the objections that this road could end up a London Road to Evesham Road through-route, and this proposal could make it even worse – highways officers need to be quizzed to make sure that this road is up to scratch. 

 

Regarding drainage, the developer has done a lot to get sustainable urban drainage right, using 100 years plus 30% as a criterion – we need to be clear that this will definitely happen.  Phase 1 of the scheme was half-way built in 2007 and some of the drainage system was not in place, which led to particular problems for Whaddon Road and Wymans Brook.  Sufficient safeguards need to be in place during construction, as this is very worrying for people whose homes were flooded in 2007.

 

This particular development highlights the issues of an outline permission coming back years later.  The problems of the early part of the development have been addressed to some extent, but parking is a major issue, as is the quality of the building.  The density has been reduced but is very significant for people living and working in the area, and the under provision of parking will lead to more issues in Battledown Park than in neighbouring Priors Road.  There were conditions on density in the earlier applications, and we can see now the problems this caused.  The density has been reduced but is still very high, and not right on the outskirts of the town.  Realises that he is tilting at windmills but these particular issues need to be raised and we need to be satisfied that we have done all we can.

 

 

Member debate:

LG:  Councillor Hay has addressed the main problem here – the highways question and the consequences that flow from that.  This was a question raised in the outline permission and an answer to the highway problems associated with the site is expected now.  As an add-on to that, there is the question of the number of houses to be built, as set out in the outline permission.  On TV now we are seeing people suffering from flooding, and being told that something should have been about it in readiness for what was likely to happen, such as diversion, dredging etc.  The roads in Phase 1 and 2 are very narrow – with cars parked down both sides; it was difficult for the planning view bus to get through in the middle of the afternoon when most people would have been at work, and it must be much worse at peak times.  311 additional houses will mean 450-500 more cars on roads which are already over capacity.  The roads need to be 20 feet wider.  We need to counteract what we know in 2014 and do something about it at this stage.  This is the only chance we have to help people living in Phase 1 and 2 – their needs are more important than the new residents. 

 

Regarding suggested Condition 5, asked why the windows need to be sliding sash or side hung and of timber construction?  Modern housing should be looking at the best way to insulate, with double glazing and uPVC windows – we are going back in time in requiring this as a condition.

 

BD:  has a number of issues with this, and agrees with Councillor Hay’s comments.  On planning view, passed through Phase 1 and noticed that the quality of the houses isn’t very good – they look shabby – and there is nowhere to store bins,which are largely kept by the front doors, or for recycling. Does not like outline permissions, this one in particular – 16 years ago when the outline permission was granted, 12% affordable housing was considered acceptable, but the world has changed since then and we need more.  To build this development with only 12% affordable housing is totally wrong.  We should learn by our mistakes, not compound them.  The developers should go back to the drawing board and improve on what they have done.  We need housing, and owe it to the people who live there already not to make the same mistakes as 16 years ago, when the scheme was drawn up for profit, not for the poor souls who live there.

 

BF:  doesn’t disagree with this, and thinks access for emergency vehicles could be a real problem at the top end of the site.  GCHQ had a pedestrian entrance on Imjin Road and vehicles could not get up Harp Hill when there was snow on the ground.  The narrow roads in Phase 1 are a fait accompli, but Phase 3 includes 40 houses in the AONB and others very close to it – it would have been nice to see something about this in the officer report – we should always have a thought for what the site will be like looking in from the outside as well as looking out from the inside. 

 

The biggest concern, however, is the drainage – the known flood risk and what the Environment Agency says.  The EA leads on fluvial flood risk, but there is very little in the report about pluvial flood risk, and most of the potential problems are pluvial – the site slopes towards Wyman’s Brook, Albert Road, PittvillePark, Leisure@ and SwindonVillage.  There is little or no indication of what would happen here, as summed up in the last paragraph from the Environmental Agency, which suggests that detailed drainage scheme drawings are needed.  In 1999 there was no NPPF, but now a scheme which provides attenuation for a 1 in 100 year storm standard plus 30% allowance is required - is not confident the drainage system will comply with this.  Notes from page 31 of the report private drainage measures will include permeable pavements for some, swales, water butts etc.  This is inadequate – his own water butt was full by 2^nd October, only takes water from half the house, and fills in two days, with surplus water going straight down the drain.  The Environment Agency has noted that the balancing pond appears to have been removed.  Concerned about this issue – it is fine to say that the outline proposal has been approved but this is no good to the people who could be flooded, and there is enough on the news at present to make us work hard at preventing them.

 

MS:  agrees with what has been said so far.  It is unfortunate that this part of the scheme is being completed last – it should have been done first, with the developers working down the hill towards Prestbury Road, giving them a better idea of the problems.  The narrow roads have already been mentioned, but would also like to question how the heavy earth-moving machinery etc required to demolish and re-level the site will get in and out via these roads?   Harp Hill is not very wide either. Would like confirmation that plans are in place to keep disruption of existing residents to a minimum.  Also considers the residents have been short-changed on parking and bins storage etc.  This is not a good design – we can’t do much to help the existing residents but we can help with this one.

 

CH, in response:

-          the outline permission granted in 1999 is reflected by the red outline round the whole site, including Phases 1 and 2 – the site was considered as a whole at the time, and although the decision to extend the time to 15 years, to 2016 is not one he has heard of before and is regrettable, this is where we are now with the proposal and what we must consider today;

-          regarding density, following on from the earlier permissions, it was expected that the density would be much higher than it is.  The urban design officer was heavily involved in the process and feels the density is right, moving up through the site;

-          regarding flooding issues, the Environment Agency’s comments referred to by BF were made last July, prior to the update.  Their comments from November and January confirm that they are now happy that the proposal is in line with NPPF requirements of 100 years standard plus 30%.  Issues were considered and dealt with, and are now acceptable to the lead local flood authority

 

BF:   the number of houses may have to be reduced if the site cannot cope with the proposed number.  Members are told that the number is set in concrete but we should have the detail before making a decision – the lead local flood authority has stated that a balancing pond has disappeared from the drawings, this is a very steep site on clay soil which won’t absorb water.  Rainwater will flow down the hill – has seen this happen.  The 1999 permission was granted before the NPPF, and drainage needs to be right before houses are put in place – anything else would be the wrong way round, like being measured for a suit when you’ve got it on.

 

CH, in response:

-          the Environment Agency has stated it is satisfied that the drainage arrangements can and will work, and there are attenuation measures on site.  There are a lot of hard surfaces, and the proposal doesn’t currently conform to the 1 in 100 years plus 30% requirement, but this can be achieved.  Officers are satisfied that the conditioned details will be submitted, and if the details don’t comply, the conditions will not be granted.

 

BF:  the report seems to state that the Environment Agency says pluvial flooding is the responsibility of the lead local flooding authority, yet there has been no consultation.

 

CH, in response:

-          the Environment Agency has provided detailed, bespoke comments and been involved in the scheme from Day 1.  Officers are happy with the strategy, and if conditioned in consultation with the lead local flood agency, this is acceptable;

-          regarding LG’s comment about the windows, the condition could have been carried over from the 1999 permission, and can be changed to reflect the more modern context.

 

MPower, in response:

-          we could talk at length about the problems with the road widths and car parking in the earlier phases, but it should be remembered that these permissions were granted under PPG13, with the intention of encouraging people away from car use.  The time to object to these issues was 1998; we would lose an appeal, and have costs against us, if we refusel now on these grounds;

-          agrees that the planning process is sometimes hard to understand, but the Starvehall Farm application did not ultimately include a through link, and the committed development at Oakley was modelled as part of that application;

-          regarding the construction method statement, asks Members to make sure the applicants take this on board – they need to take it seriously ensure that it is fit for purpose, and enforced by CBC;

-          regarding the design, internal lay-out, parking  etc, it is unusual and unhelpful to have a 15-year gap between the outline permission and the reserved matters, this is where we can comment

-          regarding resultant traffic, the principle is also set here and was considered acceptable at the time – and is now accepted..

 

CH, in response:

-          MPower has mentioned the need for a detailed construction method statement.  This is not currently included in the report, but will definitely be added to the conditions.

 

RG:  this application shows what’s wrong with the planning process – it should be a partnership.  The developer knows it’s 16-17 years since the outline permission was granted and that things have changed since then, such as affordable housing– although we’re told the percentage can’t be changed, the developer could have worked in partnership and offered more in view of today’s requirements and with Persimmon sites all over the country. More partnership would have been nice. 

 

Phase 1 and 2 were granted under the last labour government, which relaxed parking and upped density, with the result that there are cars parked everywhere.  Is concerned about lorries getting through, and supports the construction method statement, to apply to all roads in Phase 1 and 2. 

 

On a technicality, we are told we can’t do anything about the roads in Phase 1 and 2, but we cannot have a REM application without an OUT – one of the reserved matters is associated roads, and roads in Phase 1 and 2 must come under this?  The outline permission was for the whole red line site, including Sainsbury’s, and CBC could look very stupid if it allows further houses and roads to be added to a scheme which doesn’t work now – would appreciate a legal view on this.

 

Wonders why there is a holding tank at the highest point of the site, and suggests that Condition 9 must be looked at very carefully, with drainage details for the whole site, including Phases 1 and 2, taken into account.  We need to see where the water will flow – if towards the Wyman’s Brook, this could be a serious matter.  The Environment Agency has been involved with the site since 1998 and must be aware of the flash flooding in Whaddon in 2007; it therefore must be very mindful of surface water flow through the estate.  Disagrees with BF, as the scheme can’t go ahead if Condition 9 isn’t satisfied.  This, and the construction method statement, need to be strengthened to cover the whole site inside the red line of the outline permission.  Regarding the roads within the red line outline, these don’t work now and additional houses will make the problem worse, so what is to be done about that?

 

CL, in response:

-          there has been a lot of talk about going back to square one and to things already set by the outline permission.  As MPower says, if we refuse the reserved matters on this basis, it could be seen as unreasonable by at appeal.  Refusing to approve reserved matters when objections relate to issues that should already have been considered at the outline stage is an express example of circumstances which may lead to an award of costs against a planning authority;

-          regarding RG’s comment about the red line outline of the original site, the ‘associated roads’ in this reserved matters application will refer to those in respect of to Phase 3 only;

-          only the reserved matters – external appearance, siting, design and landscaping – are being considered today.

 

CH, in response:

-          to RG’s comments on Condition 9, realises this is a hugely contentious item, and the condition can be amended accordingly to pick up on all the points raised.

 

RG:  will it refer to the whole site?

 

CH, in response:

-          no, only to Phase 3.

 

RG:  the construction method statement must show the route through the estate to where the new houses are being constructed.

 

HM:  thanked CL for her advice.  There are a lot of representations concerned with highways matters and the problems with car parking and road widths.  Phases 1 and 2 are being investigated – what is the current state of those discussions?  Residents are very keen to hear what mitigation is being suggested.  BF’s question about consultation with the Cotswold Conservation Board has not been answered.  It commented on the outline and should have been consulted on this application too - the developer could have suggested a 20-storey block of flats!  CCB should have had the opportunity to comment on the design and lay-out of the site. 

 

Is concerned about emergency access for the 40 houses at the top of the site.  In adverse conditions, emergency vehicles cannot get up Harp Hill.  Could rising bollards be included, as at Starvehall Farm, to allow emergency vehicles access from one side of the site to the other?

 

The orange update includes comments from the landscape architect – are these points resolved?  Notes that the site has been sparsely used over a number of years, yet there is no GCER report on protected species in the officer report.  It is very likely that bats and badgers have entered the site.

 

RW:  agrees with what’s been said and supports RG’s suggestion that Condition 9 should be strengthened.  Regarding highways, MPower says the question of access cannot be revisited, but we can revisit the question of the adequacy of the road widths for vehicles, in particular refuse vehicles.  Would like this clarified, and suggests the application could be refused on these grounds.

 

PT:  is concerned that Members are spending so long talking about things which we’re told are set in stone and cannot be changed, and upset that we are being forced to agree to a 15-year-old permission, including many issues which we could not know would have changed so much – we should watch out for this in the future, and not allow such a long gap again.

 

Regarding the hassle caused by on-street parking, couldn’t the developer put down double yellow lines, particularly around the worst bottle-necks, to improve site access?  This would improve matters not just for heavy lorries but for the continuous stream of vehicles through the site.  Agrees with LG that the windows need to be double-glazed, and regarding the balancing pond, can CH give more information about what sort of protection there is likely to be for this – it is to be a feature in the middle of the site and easily accessible to children, which could lead to complete chaos.

 

PJ: the report states there is no highway objection as is the proposal complies with the NPPF in that the cumulative impact of the additional homes and cars will not be severe.  What about the impact on Phase 1 - the roads are unadopted and it’s unlikely that Persimmon will ever arrange this - of the heavy trucks using them for Phase 3? These could cause damage the residents have no power to do anything about - the cumulative effect of all three phases could be atrocious.  Agrees with RG’s concerns about the water flow across the site and doesn’t consider we have enough information to make a good decision – this is worrying and will be on his conscience.  What can Members do?  Is it unreasonable to ask questions?  Doesn’t think it is, despite being told of the risk of appeal and costs against us.  The developer should go back to the drawing board and come back with more information, taking into account the cumulative impact of Phase 3 on the community - a huge concern.

 

KS:  shares these concerns, and considers we have been snookered by this.  Is worried about access – the road by Sainsbury’s is narrow and has a high number of vehicle movements, and was struck on a recent visit by how much of the development is served by one small access. Realises that we cannot revisit the access arrangements,though it is beyond belief that this was allowed in the first place.  Regarding the landscaping and the balancing pond, is the maintenance of these to be conditioned and if so, who will be responsible?  This is a very sloping site and we need to be clear.  This is a brownfield site which needs to be developed, but is concerned that we may not be making the best use of it, and wonders what was going through people’s minds when the outline permission was granted.

 

BD:  having listened to the debate, it would be ridiculous for Members to approve this application.  Concerns have been voiced all round the room, on flooding, roads, quality of life etc.  With the last agenda, Members received information about a proposal which officers recommended for approval, Members refused, and was dismissed at appeal.  Members should stand up and be counted, not threatened.  If there is something wrong, the developer must go back and do something about it. 

 

BF:  CH has said that rainwater handling will be dealt with by the management company.  This may or may not be effective – the Midwinter site is managed through a company, but if problems are not solved, no one will want to buy the houses.  MPower said that highway matters were agreed in 1999, but the NPPF has changed the rules – planning law has changed on traffic and highways issues.

 

PJ:  forgot to ask a question amid heightened concern – is it possible to add a condition requiring the adoption of the previous roads prior to this proposal going ahead?

 

PH:  is getting more and more horrified by the minute. Members are between a rock and hard place:  either vote for this appalling application, or go against it risking appeal and unreasonable behaviour.  Just how unreasonable would it be to vote against it?  With two small accesses, poor state of the roads, heavy plant moving through the site – would an Inspector really consider it unreasonable to refuse on these grounds?  Feels a moral imperative here and cannot vote in support.

 

LG:  this has been a good debate with serious issues raised.  It’s clear that if the application site was on level ground it would have been passed by now, but it is part of a phased development.  Members’ comments show their great concern about permitting something which will be detrimental to others.  Asks the legal officer if Members are obliged to permit this phase of the application when they know that by doing so, it will harm the amenity of people already living there.  It would be a disaster, and cannot vote for the proposal if this is the case.  Has listened to all the comments, in particular RG and BF, and proposes that the decision be deferred for one month pending further negotiation with those responsible, so that all Members’ worries can be taken on board and questions answered. 

 

CC:  asked Members to think what they would like to achieve by this.

 

RG:  was also going to move for a deferral for a number of reasons.  Firstly, because Members of the committee are trying to re-write Condition 9 which would better be done by a hydrologist or the applicant.  Secondly, the construction method statement needs to be worked through, to cover the surrounding highways network, with the onus on the developer to show how it will work.  Thirdly, was reminded by a comment from PJ of Cypress Gardens in Gloucester in 2007 where roads and drains remained unadopted, and the area was severely flooded.  If Members can’t say no for legal reasons, they should say no to avoid another Cypress Gardens situation.  Deferral is right course here. 

 

AM:  agrees with LG and RG.  In view of the concerns raised by officers and other consultees as well as Members, it would be negligent to go ahead with the scheme in its present form.  Deferral is the sensible answer – with their questions answered, the committee will be able to go forward.

 

BF:  does not think that one month’s deferral will be long enough, to give time for the various discussions needed between the developer, the applicant, officers, the lead local flood authority etc.

 

RW:  was going to raise the same point, and also whether the developer might consider a re-design of the scheme with fewer houses.  Members are concerned about flooding and highways issues:  the substantial risk of flooding in Phase 1, 2 and 3, as seen in the flash flooding at Wyman’s Brook in 2007, which needs to be fully addressed before the application comes back to committee;   and regarding highways, concerns at a basic level – the safety of the public –this is the issue, regardless of the possibility of costs. Members cannot pass schemes with substantial concerns about safety. 

 

PJ:  affordable housing should also be addressed again, and Members be given assurance of this.

 

CC:  the agent is in the room, and will hopefully take away all the comments he has heard tonight.  Members would like answers on surface water and flood risk, construction method statement, highways issues, emergency access, the Cotswold Conservation Board, and protected species. 

 

PT:  and how children will be kept away from the balancing pond.

AC: and the windows condition.

BD:  would like bins and recycling storage written in – this is very important.

PJ:  and adoption of existing roads issue.

 

CC:  is happy that everything has now been covered – there is much work to be done.

 

Vote taken on LG’s move to defer, pending further information on the above issues.

15 in support – unanimous

DEFER