Agenda item

Report of the Leader

The Cabinet Member Built Environment introduced the report. The report explained that on 27 July 2010 Cabinet had approved a consultation exercise on the proposed revisions of the North Place and Portland Street Development Brief and its associated technical appendix; the Cheltenham Civic Pride Urban Design Framework Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). These revisions were considered necessary by the Cheltenham Development Task Force in order to reflect current market conditions and enable greater flexibility in the type and mix of uses that could be accommodated on the site.

He stressed that whilst the SPD was far more flexible than before, there would still be high standards set for the quality of the development.

Consultation had been key to the development of the brief and a wide range of comments had been received. He was pleased that many of the suggestions had now been incorporated. He thanked the Strategic Land Use Team for their work in carrying out the consultation and drafting responses.

In summary he said it was the most significant development scheme in the town in the last 30 years.  It would bring huge environmental improvements as well as creating jobs and boosting the local economy.

Councillor Fletcher declared an interest as a member of the board of trustees for Dowty House. She highlighted the need for the developers to take great care in this area particularly with regard to the distance between buildings.

A member suggested that the reference to underground car parking in 5.2 was not strong enough and developers would be unlikely to consider this if it was presented as an option. Forcing developers to introduce underground car parking would improve the environment and free up land.

Another member was concerned about the cost of underground car parking which could be as much as 10 times the cost of over-ground parking and asked where the council would get the money from. Another member suggested that if developers were forced to fund this, this would reduce the potential funding for other improvements paid for by the developer which the council might negotiate.

A member sought reassurance that land would not be sold for a supermarket in order to finance the rest of the development.  He also commented that the risk assessment in appendix 1 was inadequate and asked what would happen if the council did not get a developer for the site. Was that the end of Civic pride?

Other members made the following comments and questions:

• There was a reference to restricting the number of storeys in residential properties to 5, was there a similar intention to restrict the number of storeys in commercial properties?
• Would the 300 car parking spaces be in addition to car parking provided as part of a business or residential development?
• In reviewing the proposals members should be looking at the bigger picture and the vision for the next 20 years.
• It was important not to be too restrictive with developers and the council must be flexible and work with them.
• The scheme was important for raising funds for improvements in other areas of the town such as Royal Well, Town Hall and Imperial Gardens.
• Could members have clarification on the process and when it would come back to members?

In response the Cabinet Member Built Environment advised that there was an acknowledgement of the need for sensitivity In the West and North of the scheme and Dowty House was specifically mentioned in the report. He advised that in some areas of the development a five-storey property might be acceptable as there were some existing properties of this height in the area.

He was satisfied that the brief directed developers to consider underground car parks as an option but he felt it would be dangerous to insist on this.

He reminded members that the Council had appointed the development task force as a group of professional experts and had intentionally put it at arm’s length from the council.  There was a balancing act between aspirations and the need for a sound financial business case. The permitted uses were clearly set out in the brief and this did include retail use. He confirmed that under the development brief, developers would be expected to meet the car parking needs of businesses and other facilities on their sites as part of the development.

He concluded that there would be ongoing review by the Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The committee had already received a detailed presentation on the scheme which had been welcomed by members. He would be happy to arrange for this presentation to be offered to all members if there was a demand.

Upon a vote the recommendations were CARRIED.

Voting: For 34, Against 2 and no abstentions.

Resolved that the revised Cheltenham Civic Pride Urban Design Framework Supplementary Planning Document (Appendix A) under section 23 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, including the revised North Place and Portland Street Development Brief (Appendix B) be adopted.