Agenda item

EP reminded Members that there are two schemes with consent on this site for 10 and 7 dwellings, with a different combination of elements approved on each, one with flat roofs and one with mansard roofs.  The application is at committee at the request of Councillors Coleman and Holliday.

Public Speaking:

Mr Farmer, local resident, in objection

On behalf of local residents, said there are two main reasons for objection. The second application, approved in 2012, is preferred by neighbours, as it is the best design and lowest density.  People are frustrated with the planning system which allows developers to submit scheme after scheme until they get what they want.  Can see the weight of professional opinion and realises that there are two schemes already approved, so residents are pretty much caught in a cleft stick, with the strong impression that this scheme will be approved the CBC or at appeal.  The officer has done a good job with the conditions, but three of these could be strengthened.  Would like an amendment of Condition 16 or assurances from the Committee that the construction method statement will only be approved after consultation with residents – this would address a number of concerns, such as loss of telephone and internet services when the telegraph pole is removed.  Commends the approval of recreational facilities, but would like an amendment of Condition 14 to ensure that these too will only be approved after consultation with residents – a collaborative approach, preferably with the developers, is needed to address local needs.  Lastly, regarding Condition 1, considers that five years is too long for implementation – the second application has until 2017, and residents don’t want to be kept in limbo for another two years after this, with the possibility of squatters moving into the derelict property.  There are further concerns about traffic which Councillor Holliday will address, but his message is that local people will be happier if these conditions are strengthened and they would like to work in collaboration of the council and developer to see this done.

Councillor Holliday, on behalf of local residents

Residents are unhappy about the timing of the consultation over Christmas, resulting in some of their comments not being as detailed as they would have liked.  Expects Members are frustrated to be considering another application on this site, but while neighbours accept that some development is going to take place, they want to be sure it will be done in consultation with them, in a spirit of collaboration and goodwill.  New DawnHomes have made it clear over the years that they don’t want to consult with residents, which is disappointing. 

Residents accept the need for the site to be developed, if only to prevent the problem of squatters, but it must be the right development for them.   It is concerning that the building sizes haven’t been reduced to accommodate the additional property, and residents would like to be consulted in future, particularly regarding conditions outlined in the officer’s report.  Condition 12 is important as garages should not be converted into living accommodation without seeking planning permission, and Condition 16, regarding the construction method statement, is also important to residents who remember the mess and debris caused by the development at The Hawthorns opposite.  Enforcement officers were involved but it took some time for the developers to clean up the site, and local residents do not want to see this repeated. Regarding the re-siting of the telegraph pole, residents are concerned that there should be no interruption to their phone and internet service. 

Would like reassurance that the loss of parking spaces at the front of the development will result in enough spaces for residents to part their cars.  Newer properties in Market Street have garages but these are too small and residents are not using them for their cars – there are lessons to be learnt here.  With regard to highways issues, is concerned that the development will add to parking problems in the area, and has problems with the highways officer’s report.  Accepts his conclusion and the inclusion of three recommended conditions but has major concerns regarding increased vehicle movements along Church Road, especially in light of the A40 traffic consultation and the impact of no right turn into Tennyson Road.  Cannot accept this will not have a significant impact if implemented.  Believes this highways proposal is likely to impact many roads in this ward, including Church Road, and has heard of motorist exiting Church Road East, turning left towards Gloucester Road and immediately doing a u-turn into Lansdown Court Drive.  This sort of incident could well increase with additional residents in Church Road.

Urges Highways to reconsider their response to this application, which was written prior to the A40 consultation and need to be revisited.  Doesn’t want to be in a position of saying ‘I told you so…’ in the future if an accident should occur.

Residents accept that this site will be developed and prefer the 2012 scheme. Commends them for working through Mr Farmer, in conversation with the planning officer, to draw up a sensible approach to this application.  Asks Members to take their comments on board, and urges Gloucestershire Highways to look again at the impact of the A40 consultation on the residents of Church Road.

Member debate:

MS:  didn’t like the first scheme and was disappointed when the Inspector allowed it.  The second one was better, but this proposal is again like trying to fit a quart into a pint pot for one extra flat and one extra car.  Had reservations about the previous scheme but couldn’t think of any relevant refusal reasons; this scheme is a medley of the first two.  Will have to support it, but considers the developer is trying to get too much out of the site.  Noted the parking conditions on planning view, and in view of the size of the garages wonders if they will take a 4x4 vehicle.

BD:  asked about  the trees in tubs which appear to be attached to the houses in the drawings.

RG:  would like legal advice on the three year/five year implementation issue raised by Mr Farmer.  The developers are present and will hopefully take note.  In his own ward, local residents and the developer of 79-81ThePark built up a good relationship and were able to sort out a lot of problems, once they started to talk.  Agrees that Condition 16 should be strengthened, and the developer’s contact number acquired so residents know who to get hold of if any issues arise.

BF:  has sympathy with the residents.  Is concerned that there are no set sizes for the garages.  Did not like the first application, quite liked the second, but considers the current scheme brings together the worst bits of both, just to squeeze another unit in.  Is looking to see if there are any policies which could be used for refusal – HS2 is shaky, CP7 or TP6 are possible but difficult.  As there are already two approvals here, is not sure where to go with this.

PJ:  can’t remember the previous applications, but the developer is very good with local residents – maybe the current developer has a different approach, but agrees with RG that conversations between residents and developers can help.  Regarding the design, it may be trying to fit a quart into a pint pot, but quite likes the look of it. 

PT:  asked for some clarification of the drawing on screen, to include the three-storey units.  Is also interested to hear legal advice on the three years/five years matter – is never sure why developers are given five years to start work, allowing them to sit on sites as once they have a permission, it’s difficult not to give them another.  Commented on the size of the garages after the experience of Market Street, but was told that this is not a planning issue – which is stupid, as it is crazy to build a garage which cannot fit a car.  Wonders why people buy these houses and let the developers get away with it.

AM:  on the question of the number of years, isn’t it down to the committee to say how long the developer has in which to build?  Nothing is set in stone.

CL, in response:

-          that is quite correct.  Five years is a default standard, but this can be longer or shorter if it is reasonable to do so.  In this case, with two planning permissions already granted and neither implemented, this would be sufficient reason for the development to be brought forward.

AM:  has sympathy for Mr Farmer and Councillor Holliday’s issues, but Members will struggle to come up with a refusal reason which will stand up at appeal.  Is concerned the site is still undeveloped, and suggests that limiting the time for this application to no longer than already granted with the previous one may force the developer’s hand.

RG:  Councillor Holliday says there have been squatters on the site – we don’t want this, we want housing.  The permission should be for three years, not five.

PT:  agrees, but is there any way we can force the developer to start building sooner?

BF:  attended a planning training day in Derby with HM about a year ago, where the question arose of how to make builders build, and understood that a 106 agreement can be used to require completion by a certain date.

PJ:  supports a three-year time limit on this application.

CC:  should the Highways recommendation have changed in the light of the A40 consultation?

MPower, in response:

-          there are some similarities here to the GCHQ Oakley application.  There are two extant planning permissions, and the starting point is what the increase in traffic over these will be – one extra flat will not generate any significant traffic, and under the NPPF, permission can only be refused if the impact will be severe

RW:  Councillor Holliday referred to no right turn into Tennyson Road, which is a recent development.

MPower, in response:

-          is aware of the traffic consultation and this change, but an extra 0.4 trips per day as a result of the extra flat is not severe.

PT:  is there any chance of a 106 agreement being used to put a time limit on the development?

CL, in response:

-          is not sure what training BF was referring to, and maybe what he said could be relevant to very large developments for a variety of possible reasons, but it is not applicable here – developers are entitled to build or not to build as they wish, within the conditioned time limit.

CC:  can EP facilitate communication between the residents and developers, as suggested?

EP, in response:

-          would propose informal discussions and is happy to help set this up if required;

-          regarding the construction method statement, is happy to let local residents see a copy of this if they would like to;

-          the developer must resolve the telegraph pole issue separately from the planning system.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit with a three-year time limit

12 in support

0 in objection

3 abstentions

PERMIT