Agenda item

 

Application Number:			14/01436/FUL
Location:	86 Cirencester Road, Charlton Kings, Cheltenham
Proposal:	Erection of a new convenience store (A1) with associated parking following demolition of all existing buildings on the site (revised scheme following 13/02174/FUL)
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit subject to a 106 Obligation
Members present for debate:				11 (Councillor McCloskey left the Chamber before the public speaking; Councillor Baker spoke in objection and then left the Chamber.)
Committee Decision:					Permit subject to a 106 Obligation
Letters of Rep:		120 + petition		Update Report:		Officer comments; additional representation

GB introduced Duncan McCallum of DPDS, who is present to answer Members’ questions – these should be addressed to the officer in the first instance.  He said that Mark Power of GCC highways team cannot be present at the meeting, but as highways issues were dealt with at the last meeting, officers do not consider it essential that a county highways officer is present tonight.

 

Councillor McCloskey left the Chamber at this point for the duration of the debate.

 

LW introduced the application as above, and provided some background to the site and proposals.  It is currently used for a hand car-wash service, having previously been a car sales workshop and petrol filling station.  The revised application being considered today is similar to the scheme refused in July.  Refusal reasons were: 

 

(1)        impact on the viability of Croft Road shops and potential loss of facilities, contrary to policy RT7   and NPPF paragraph 70;

(2)        the design, appearance and impact on the character of the area, and removal of trees along        Newcourt Road with insufficient replacement, contrary to policy CP7 and NPPF paragraph 58; 

(3)        the increase in noise and disturbance and harm to the amenity of local residents, due to the         increase in traffic, delivery vehicles, car parking, and the ATM, contrary to policy CP4 and        NPPF paragraph 58. 

 

The applicant has addressed these refusal reasons, following discussion with officers.  Various options have come forward, culminating in the current application, which officers consider to be much improved – a good design, in keeping with local character, and providing additional shopping facilities.  The previous refusal has focussed the applicant’s mind in thinking about these issues, and was therefore a helpful decision in improving the scheme.  Landscaping, layout, footprint and design are all considered acceptable by officers; the Civic Society and Architects Panel have approved the scheme, there are no objections from Environmental Health or Highways, subject to relevant conditions.  

 

The application has been thoroughly scrutinised, with regard to the retail impact, noise levels, transport issues, and landscaping.  Following the July meeting, improvements have been made to the scheme, including a review of the retail issues, and all previous refusal reasons addressed in a satisfactory manner.  The recommendation is to permit.

 

 

GB checked that all Members had read the updates.

 

 

 

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Russell Grimshaw, neighbour, in objection

Other people have commented on the terrible impact this development would have on the quality of life of residents and the independent businesses, including the last Post Office, which form part of the social fabric and give Charlton Kings its village feel.  Will therefore focus on factual planning matters.  The ‘fall-back’ position is a material consideration, and one to which the developer could ‘fall back’ to without planning consent, but the site hasn’t operated as a filling station since 1996, so this is not a use the developer could fall back to.  It’s been said that, as the tanks still exist, they could be re-used, but in fact they were filled with concrete in the mid-90s and are not re-usable; the fall-back position cannot be a filling station.  The Transport Statement’s analysis has been based on forecast traffic flows for a filling station, but as this isn’t a valid fall-back position, such comparisons are irrelevant and the conclusions are therefore meaningless. 

 

The Mango Retail Statement states this distance on foot between the development and existing neighbourhood centres relates to the impact on those centres, and that any centres closer than 500m will be affected.  It then states incorrectly that Lyefield Road West and Church Piece are further than 500m and will therefore be unaffected, but in fact they are 465m and 389m respectively.  The DPDS also fails to measure these distances correctly; this basic failure, and agreement in both reports that this is relevant to the impact of the proposed store, makes their assessment of the impact wrong. 

 

The acoustic assessment has been produced using a methodology that the report’s own author admits ‘is widely considered to be stretching the use of the standard’.  The chosen method of averaging noise incidents over a five-minute period and comparing them to background noise has been used to produce the required result, not to accurately asses the noise impact on residents.  The World Health Organisation’s ‘Guidelines for Community Noise’ would have been more relevant, providing guidance to noise levels suitable to protect surrounding residents against sleep disturbance.  The report is therefore flawed and its conclusions meaningless.

 

Does not have time to waste on the ridiculous and unenforceable DMP.  Members have not been provided with accurate information on which to base their decision, as the documents are incorrect and use misleading methods.  The proposal does not represent sustainable development, is deeply flawed and should be rejected for these sound planning reasons.

 

 

Mr Giles Brockbank, Hunter Page Planning, in support

When the previous application was refused in July, the applicants listened to the long debate, noted the issues of concern to Members, and have since taken considerable time to address all three refusal reasons.  This is explained in detail in the officer report, which is thorough, robust and comprehensive, and officers consider the proposed development to be consistent with policy, with no justifiable reasons for refusal. 

 

The size of the store has been reduced to allow a meaningful and appropriate landscape buffer to Newcourt Road to help retain its character.  The ATM has been moved inside the store, so can only be used when the store is open; opening hours have been reduced.  The design of the store has been amended in line with comments from the Architects Panel and urban design officer, and the plant associated with the store relocated to protect residential amenity of surrounding properties.  The traffic impact has been re-evaluated, and shows that the store will account for less that 1% of the traffic on Cirencester Road, considerably less than previous uses associated with the site.  The retail impact has been assessed and, as previously, shows that there are no justifiable grounds to refuse the scheme on retail grounds – this has been independently assessed and the Council’s consultant is present to clarify the point. 

 

The proposal will enable the re-use of a brownfield site and its decontamination.  Alternative proposals have been looked at for the side, including residential development, but this has proved unviable.  The scheme at committee today is a genuine opportunity for a bespoke development which will enhance the site on an arterial route into town and provide much-needed employment. 

 

All consultee groups and professionals have provided their qualified expertise when giving consideration to the proposal, applying their qualifications and experience to evaluate huge amounts of information.  Their recommendations have put the proposal in context, giving due consideration to local and national planning policy, and the potential effect on those who live opposite and in the vicinity.  In the context of the previous refusal reasons, the revised application has been examined by professional officers who consider the development should be given unequivocal acceptance. 

 

The proposal before committee today is the result of the planning system working at its best to respond to and improve schemes, in this case addressing the concerns of the committee.  There is now a very robust recommendation to approve which deals with all the planning issues thoroughly.  It is clear from the resubmissions that there are no justifiable or defendable reasons to refuse; therefore trusts that Members will follow the advice of their officers and approve the scheme.

 

Councillor Reid, in objection

It must have been quite a marathon for Councillors examining all the evidence in this case, and the large number of objections shows the strength of feeling against this proposal.  Charlton Kings Parish Council reached their own conclusions, as follows:  (a) the deleterious impact on the sustainability of local businesses; (b) loss of amenity for nearby resident, regarding noise and traffic; (c) failure to meet the JCS objection ‘to ensure that all new developments are valued by residents as they…provide well-located infrastructure which meets the needs of residents’;  (d) failure to meet the NPPF test of improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions; (e) concerns about the hazard of likely parking on both sides of Cirencester Road opposite the proposed store’s entrance; (f) concern over access arrangements for delivery lorries.  Members will have read their expanded arguments on each aspect of these, which effectively summarise the situation and mirror the numerous concerns from local residents.

 

The improvements in the design and more sympathetic treatment of Newcourt Road are acknowledged, but the fundamental difficulty remains that these proposals are an unwelcome solution to how the car wash site might be developed to enhance the lives of people in Charlton Kings.  If localism means anything, it must mean that the developer works with the grain and reflects the needs of residents.  At the heart of the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the core planning principle of empowering local people to shape their surroundings.  This includes the need to promote mixed use and deliver sustainable development, which this scheme fails on both counts; it is more of the same, and admits that an existing retail outlet is likely to close – so doesn’t reflect the NPPF aim to promote the retention and development of local services and community facilities.  The historic hub around the Nisa site is held in special regard by Charlton Kings – as a meeting point it plays in important part in people’s lives, not recognised in business evaluation though a key element in the social fabric of south Charlton Kings.  It will be degraded with the loss of Nisa.

 

Concerns about traffic and pedestrian safety on Cirencester Road are strengthened, and the previously accident-free zone could be seriously compromised.  The road narrows by four feet at the entrance to the store, and two cars will not be able to pass if there are parked cars on both sides of the road.  The traffic report stated that casual parking on the carriageway is expected, and this coupled with an increased footfall across the main road, by elderly and vulnerable people, is a receipt for disaster.  At seasonal peak times, shoppers are likely to use the east side of the road, causing displacement into Pumphrey’s Road, which is already crowded.

Any breaches of the Delivery Management Plan will be difficult to challenge, due to demands on enforcement team and the complexity of presenting credible evidence.  Will delivery drivers comply with all the requirements?  Evidence from other parts of town shows disturbance for neighbours. 

 

The impact on neighbouring business cannot be accurately predicted, but empirical evidence from Smith & Mann shows that the development of a new store at a distance and expansion of a local shop depressed takings by 25%; a further reduction of 15% and the business will no longer by viable, which would mean losing the one remaining Post Office in the village – not sustainable, in line with the NPPF. 

 

In view of the extensive reasoned arguments by residents that this development doesn’t reflect local, national or JCS policies, hopes that Members will be minded to reject it.

 

Councillor Baker, in objection

Three months ago, Members voted to reject essentially the same application, an unashamedly speculative scheme to build a convenience store which the local community doesn’t want or need as demonstrated by 113 letters and a petition of 600 signatures in objection.  With three convenience stores close by, how does this application accord with the NPPF statement that local planning authorise should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area – there is clearly no need for another convenience store in this area.  A core NPPF principle talks about empowering local people to shape their surroundings, and about helping people to enhance and improve where they live.  Far from empowering local people, this application ignores them and will reduce the quality of their lives, especially those living close by. 

 

Although this scheme is marginally better than the previous one, it still proposes 104 operating hours a week (currently 58), from 7.00am to 10.00pm – potentially 104 hours of traffic noise and congestion, doors slamming, inconsiderate parking, delivery lorries coming and going, refrigeration units and engines left running.  How does this not represent loss of amenity?  Also of concern is the lack of staff parking, which means staff will inevitably use the nearby lay-by used for people visiting Newcourt Park. 

 

On the retail impact – or more importantly the community impact – the applicant cites other locations where similar shops have existed side by side, but the DPDS has challenged each of these examples, stating that Nisa will close and that no-one actually knows the impact on the other two stores which play an anchor role in the community, and include Charlton Kings’ last post office.  How does this accord with the NPPF which states that planning decisions should ensure that established shops are able to develop and modernise in a sustainable way and are retained for the benefit of the community.

 

We should listen to the community.  Planning is a subjective science, and this is a difficult and controversial application.  Members should be consistent and reject it, giving residents the opportunity of convincing an Inspector of the power of their arguments, strength of their feeling, and passion for their community.   They should not let the spectre of appeal costs influence their judgement.

 

One of the objectors has made reference to appeal decisions on similar applications elsewhere in the country.   In Camberley, as here, it was noted that local residents did not feel any need for another convenience store, and that loss of residential amenity, traffic issues, and threat to the vitality of the local area were all valid reasons for refusal.  In Wallasey, a proposal like this one on a car sales site as considered to have too great an effect on the living conditions of local people and cause too much noise and disturbance. 

 

There are very, very strong reasons to throw this application out.  Members should listen to residents and reject it.

 

Councillor Baker left the Chamber at this point for the duration of the debate.

 

 

Member debate:

JF:  the first speaker made reference to sustainability of local businesses.  What does the DPDS expert feel the impact of the development will be on the local retail shops?

 

KS:  one of the drawings shows a white car parked to the left – can cars go through the site this way?  Understood this area was for delivery lorries.  Welcomes the debate, but will move to refuse based on two of the previous grounds for refusal which have not been addressed properly.  Agrees that the application has been improved - has looked closely at the revised landscaping and it is an improvement but the scheme will still affect the character of the area.  Is concerned about the impact on people living nearby – the benefits of the convenience store are far outweighed by the loss of quality of life they will suffer.  A small local shop can be a real pain to people living in houses close by – if there is no room in the car park, people will park anywhere, even on the pavement, as happens at the Co-op on Leckhampton Road. Is sceptical about the delivery management plan. 

 

BF: regarding noise levels, Members should be quite clear that at this stage there is no particular end user.   A lot of detail has been submitted and comments made about the noise, plant, equipment etc, but how can we assess what equipment will be used?  Chiller and air-conditioning units would be running 24 hours a day, and are big and noisy, depending on the make, manufacturer and specification.  Recalls an application for one small unit on a domestic house where the neighbours were measuring the noise levels.  This varies with the weather as well, and fridges need to run constantly.  Does not consider enough information has been provided, and is concerned that the measurements are wrong.  We cannot make judgements based on misleading information.  What is the right way to measure the noise – what the speaker said or what is in the report?

 

JF:  asked about access for delivery vehicles, and the proposal that drivers of articulated lorries will notify the store of their arrival, and how they will be able to turn round on the site.

 

MB:  asked for clarification regarding the prior use of the site.  The speaker has stated that a petrol station is not the fall-back position, so what prior use can we consider?

 

LW, in response:

-            to KS, the car on the elevation drawing is shown as travelling  along Cirencester Road, not parked in the delivery bay.  The delivery bay is for delivery vehicles only, and there will be bollards and road markings to prevent customers from parking there;

-            to BF, it’s correct to say that we do not know who the end user will be, but the plant is likely to consist of one floor-mounted condenser, 2 floor-mounted air-conditioning units, and one for the office, which will not operate 24/7. There is a suggested condition requiring noise emission from the units  to be 5db or below background noise levels, and all equipment and emissions to be approved by the Environmental Health team in order to satisfy criteria;

-            regardingLeq/LMax criteria– this issue was referred back to the Environmental Health officer this week who had looked at this same issue when considering the earlier application, and was happy that the survey had been done correctly.  Applying the Lmax criteria alone will pick up occasional loud sound (sirens/alarms), not the ambient background noise so was not considered appropriate for this assessment;

-            to JF’s question about delivery vehicles and the possibility of drivers trying to turn round when approaching from the north, this was discussed at the last meeting.  There will be bollards at the car park end which will be lowered when a lorry leaves.  Lorries won’t be able to access the site from the north as the bollards will be in place, and drivers will be aware of this.  There is no possibility of an articulated lorry turning round in the road;

-            to MB, the ‘fall-back’ terminology has been used by the highways officer;  the highway authority position is that the fall-back position may be the site’s current authorised use or any previous use that could come back into effect.  The officer view is that the site has a long history as a petrol filling station, back to the early 1960s – this is a material consideration and should be given significant weight.  Technically, the fall-back position is the current use, but any previous use is a material consideration.

 

Duncan McCallum, of DPDS, in response:

-            to JF’s question about what the likely effect of this development will be on local shops, it is always difficult to say what the impact will be – there is an element of doubt with all sites.  Feels that Mango has underestimated the turnover of the proposed store and assumed it will draw trade from existing supermarkets; there is a large one some distance away but DPDS consider this unlikely and that it is more likely to draw trade from Nisa;

-            no-one knows how well the Nisa store is trading at present so we can only guess.  Independent shops cannot continue to trade for long when they are making a loss, whereas large conglomerates can and may prefer to continue trading even when they are making a minor loss;

-            there is a significant risk that Nisa will close.  There is less chance of a significant adverse effect on the shops at Lyefield Road and in the village centre as they are some distance from the proposed store;

-            regarding the distance from the proposed store to other local shops, DPDS was aware of the footpaths when doing the initial appraisal of the routes; 500m is the distance by car.  This is not crucial when assessing the impact in this case.  Will people swap where they shop in large numbers when walking?  Probably not;

-            the NPPF glossary states that ‘district centres’ and ‘local centres’ do not include small parades of shops of purely neighbourhood significance.  Croft Road falls into this category, and effectively this means that the NPPF wouldn’t protect that centre against development.  This is what an Inspector would find;

-            the appeal decision at Camberley involved 31 shops and would definitely have been categorised as a district or local centre, unlike the four shops in Croft Road;

-            RT7 protects neighbourhood centres but this is out of date, dating back the 2006, and an Inspector would note that it doesn’t comply with the NPPF and accordingly give it very little weight.

 

KS:  understands that the parade of shops at Croft Road and Nisa do not qualify as a local centre under the NPPF, but isn’t Lyefield Road, including the post office, large enough to come into that category?

 

 

DM, in response:

-            it is arguable about what constitutes a neighbourhood or local centre; Lyefield Road is larger and would therefore be more defendable than the Nisa/Croft Road shops.

 

LW, in response:

-            the refusal reason on the previous application relates only to Croft Road.  The impact on the other two centres (Lyefield Road and Church Road) did not form part of  the refusal reason.

 

BF:  notes the appeal at Borough Green in Kent; knows the area, and there is no large parade of shops there – it is a tiny place. 

 

DM, in response:

-          cannot comment on this; information is not included in the background papers.

 

GB:  asked KS to elaborate on her proposed grounds to refuse.

 

KS:  concerns relate to the impact on neighbouring residents rather than the first refusal reason relating to the likely impact on Nisa and the Croft Road shops.  Is concerned about the post office at Smith & Mann, but if it wasn’t included last time, it can’t be included now and would not be defendable at an appeal.  Considers the impact on local residents will be significant – not just from the increased traffic and worries about parking, but also potentially from the signage, the windows, and the appearance of the area being brought down.  The report states that the impact has been addressed but does not feel that it has been.  In her experience as a councillor has found that, even when people want a store to be built, it can cause a lot of nuisance for the locality, and in this case, people don’t want it.  The proposal is contrary to policy CP4 and paragraph 58 of the NPPF.  We should promote safe and sustainable living.

 

JF:  at the July committee meeting, was very concerned about everything, but cannot come to the same conclusion today.  There are no real planning grounds for refusal.  The proposal is in line with planning guidance.  Cannot support KS’s reasons for refusal.

 

MS:  agrees with JF.  Was fairly comfortable with the application last time, but this scheme is even better, has addressed concerns – the planting on Newcourt Road, ATM and other problems have all been resolved.  Will support the application.

 

PT: would like to reassure residents to some extent – has had a similar situation near to her home, where a supermarket has been built even closer to local houses, with people actually living over the shop.  There is an external ATM which causes no problems.  Delivery lorries do not cause any problems either – very occasionally two arrive at once, but these are not articulated lorries, and the situation is managed – and the Cirencester Road site is much more spacious.  There is also a café on site, which could add to any chaos, but in fact works extremely well.  Other local shops haven’t been lost, and three other local cafes continue trade in the immediate area.  One of the other stores includes a post office and is still well-used.  Hopes this will reassure residents if the application is permitted and comes to fruition.

 

MB:  NPPF paragraph 58 states that developments should respond to local character and history and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials – Charlton Kings is a village within a town with a distinct identity, so the policy must apply here.  Regarding the loading bay, there are no restrictions to entering it from the Cirencester Road side, so what will stop people from driving into it if the car park is full?  Are there any restrictions to prevent vehicles from reversing out onto Cirencester Road?

 

KS:  in response to PT’s comments, does not consider the Tesco store opposite the station to be totally relevant here.  There is huge footfall around the station; this is a quieter road and local shops will suffer.  Residents’ lives will suffer, and as a councillor, it is her job to help residents have better lives.  Finding the right planning grounds for refusal is difficult, but anyone who lives nearby will say that this development will affect their lives.  Regarding the fall-back position, it is stretching logic to believe that the petrol station will ever be brought back into operation, and disappointing that this has been given so much weight.  Disagrees with officers’ conclusions and urges Members to refuse the scheme and do what is best for local residents.

 

LW, in response:

-            harm to neighbouring amenity must be demonstrable.  Cirencester Road is a busy toad, used by 7,000 cars a day, and the increase in traffic will be negligible – less than 1%.  The majority of users will be cars already on the network, and a lot of customers will be pedestrian traffic – a third to a half are expected to be walking;

-            the car park is contained in the site, and shielded by the building, so noise of car doors slamming at night when front doors are closed is unlikely to cause problems.  The car wash uses a hand jet wash system which generates significant noise levels on the site;

-            questions whether any increased noise will be heard above the noise of the traffic, and reminds Members that hours have been reduced and are restricted on Sundays.  During the evening, trade will drop off, and it is therefore difficult to say that the store will harm neighbouring amenity in a significant and demonstrable way on this busy road.

-            With regard to the fall back situation.  Whilst planning permission would be required for a petrol filling station, should an application be submitted it would be difficult for this authority to resist give the long history of this use on the site

 

KS:  knows the road well and disagrees with LW.  It is quiet at night.  Customers will have music playing in their cars, will be smoking and talking, coming and going.  One car may be OK, but several will have a demonstrably harmful impact on residents nearby.  

 

AC:  his heart says no to this application, although his head is beginning to say yes, but is concerned about noise, the effect on residents, and that officers have said that this is a busy road.  People will have to cross the road, and there is no crossing nearby.  Would hate the new store to be responsible for causing any accidents nearby.

 

KS:  before Members vote on her move to refuse, they need to be clear on all the conditions.  Do any Members have additional conditions they would like to add?

 

GB:  the officers have provided a comprehensive list of conditions and informatives, and no Members have indicated that they want to add to these.

 

MB:  in response to AC’s comments about pedestrian safety, is there likely to be S106 money available for a new pedestrian crossing nearby?

 

LW, in response:

-            there will be S106 money, to provide a build-out (traffic island), together with works to  reduce the junction width between Newcourt Road and Cirencester Road and impose waiting restrictions.  Provision to ensure highway safety has been generous. 

 

BF:  would like to be sure that the parking restrictions and bollards are in place before the store opens.

 

LW, in response:

-            this would happen prior to commencement of the use.

 

 

Vote on KS’s move to refuse on Local Policy CP4 and NPPF Paragraph 58

3 in support

8 in objection

PERMIT

 

 

Councillors McCloskey and Baker returned to the Chamber at this point.