Agenda item

MP introduced the application as above, at Committee at the request of Councillor Regan on behalf of local residents.  Permission was granted to develop eight dwellings on a large portion of the site, shop and lock-up garages in 2007, and extended in 2012 – this is therefore extant, and the principle of building on this site is established.  The main consideration of the current application relates to the loss of employment land, as set out in Local Plan policy EM2, brought about by the addition of three further terraced houses on the Alma Road Garage site.  The developers have stated that eight units on the site is unviable, due to remediation costs.  They have provided a viability report, verified by the DVS, to demonstrate this.  The extant permission will not proceed for this reason, so Members have to consider what is more valuable – employment land or dwellings.  There is an argument for departure from the development plan, which would unlock the consented unviable scheme.  On balance, therefore, the recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mrs Godwin, neighbour, in objection

Has lived directly behind the development site for 36 years, and is most concerned with two important issues arising from this proposal.  Firstly, the intrusion of privacy:  three two-storey houses will be positioned adjacent to her back garden with a direct view into her home and garden, thus totally compromising her privacy, unlike other neighbouring properties which only have bungalows behind them.  Privacy and security are particularly important to her and her family, having suffered from harassment and racial abuse for many years.  The second concern is for the health and safety of her family and neighbours:  the garages have asbestos roofing and the land is contaminated by heavy metals, inorganics, petroleum hydrocarbons and other carcinogenic substances identified by a ground investigation in 2014.  Would like to request that exhaustive testing be carried out to confirm that contamination is not presently affecting water supply and soil in her back garden, and that, during removal of the contaminants from the site, dust particles be extracted from inside neighbouring homes and gardens to verify that no contaminants are reaching them.

Mr Kendrick, agent, in support

This land has long been earmarked for redevelopment, with planning permission for the majority of the site already in place.  This cannot proceed, however, without the removal of the garage.  Realises that this is a valued facility for some residents, although others do not enjoy the noise and parking issues.  By its nature, customers have to drive to a garage, so its location is not as critical as, say, a medical centre.  The existing landowner has been very reasonable, making the garage owner aware of his intentions over a year ago and allowing him the opportunity to relocate.  This has not happened, and it is unfair to penalise the landowner who has acted reasonably.  Regarding overlooking of the property behind, permission is already approved to build on the site.  Regarding criminal activity, houses on the site will increase the natural surveillance.  Regarding contaminated land, development of the site will clean up the land.  To sum up, without the development, anti-social behaviour will continue, the contaminated land issue will not be remedied, and much-needed housing will not be delivered in a sustainable location.  Asks Members to endorse the officer recommendation.

Councillor Regan, in objection

The historic beginnings of this application date back to March 2005; objected to the first proposal, which was followed by a second in 2007, meeting with great opposition from local residents – a petition of 428 signatures of people objecting to the loss of the shop and the garage was produced, but permission was granted for eight dwellings.  There are now strong objections to the loss of Alma Road Garage, based primarily on the loss of employment.  The garage provides for the needs to local people, who have used if for 20 years, and is strongly supported by both parish councils.  It is used by large numbers of people, especially the elderly, and provides exceptional benefit in this locality.  The Cheltenham Local Plan states that existing employment sites should be safeguarded for local companies; there are eight members of staff at the garage, and this should be acknowledged in the debate.  The Local Plan also acknowledges the limited opportunities for development of any new employment sites – we cannot afford to lose sites such as this to alternative uses.  In addition, notes that three pieces of evidence are required to demonstrate that an existing site is unsuitable for its current use, and is not aware that this has been provided. The extant planning permissions exists for the majority of the site, for eight dwellings, without the need to lose this important community facility.  The question must be whether the loss of the garage and its eight employees is worth three additional houses?

There are concerns about contaminated land which have not been fully quantified – no risk assessment is provided.  Full removal of all underground storage tanks is not always necessary, but this casts doubt on safety aspects. 

The above points in the Local Plan should be carefully considered, together with the comments of Warden Hill and Leckhampton Parish Council, to allow the garage business to proceed with the good work it does on the south of the town.

Member debate:

JF:  finds conflicting comments in the report which could tip the balance either way.  Taking policy EM2 into consideration, the garage employs eight people and provides good MOT service – there are no suitable alternative sites for this type of work on the south side of the town.  It is not worth losing this valuable site for the sake of three houses.  The NPPF Paragraph 70 stresses the importance of building healthy communities; this application is the wrong way forward.  The garage is an established business, providing a valuable service to the community, and people object to its loss in every way.  Agrees with the parish councils.  We have to go on providing for this type of facility.  There is not enough employment land in the town; we need every square inch, and should refuse this application on the above grounds.

AC:  when the existing planning permission was granted, was the site considered viable for eight dwellings?

CM:  the agent talking about the landowner being generous with the tenant is a red herring; the tenant should be protected under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.  If he is, did the original lease have security?  If the tenant is holding a lease which could be taken away, is this a planning issue; if it is permanent, it will be protected by the Act.

MP, in response:

-       to AC, the original planning application was not assessed on viability grounds, as there was no requirement to do so at the time.

AC:  presumably the developer thought it was viable at the time?

MP, in response:

-       to CM, the lease is not a planning issue. 

PB:  the local resident spoke about the impact the development will have on her property and garden.  Would like to see on a map how this works and hear the officer comment on this issue of loss of privacy and over-looking.

MP, in response:

-       the extant scheme includes a terrace of four houses in a very similar position to the current scheme.  The first floor windows achieve an excess of the 10.5m distance we look for, and the proposed houses also achieve that distance.

PT:  to digress slightly, agrees with JF, but also notes that there is nothing in the report from the police about the horrendous anti-social behaviour incidents that have been happening in this area.  Wonders how long it has been going on.  Is also puzzled as the footpath is a right of way, and understands that these cannot be built on.  This path has been used for many years on a regular basis, and even if it isn’t a right of way, don’t long-term custom and practice make it one?  Asks for CL’s guidance on this.  Noted on Planning View that the path is currently shut off.

MP, in response:

-       the path is not a designated right of way through the site – it is used for access and not protected.  There have been no objections to its loss from any local residents or the parish council;

-       regarding anti-social behaviour,  received a response from the constabulary, which mostly viewed the proposal as an improvement, removing the access where anti-social behaviour takes place and offering additional protection to gardens.

BF:  has no real issue with this scheme, but notes that the rear boundary with the bungalow in Dinas Road appears to be a stone boundary.  Is there any way, if permitted, that this can be protected and remain as brick and render, in view of the improvements made by the residents of Dinas Road to reflect light back into their garden?  Is surprised at the concern about the loss of the employment land – this is happening every month, with offices being turned into flats and the GCHQ Oakley site being used for housing.  If the site has been advertised as employment land for a certain amount of time and has not been taken up, it can be used for housing.  In addition, this site isn’t particularly good employment land.  There are a lot of garages in Cheltenham, and even if the proposal is turned down, there is no guarantee that this one will still be there in 12 months – it depends on the lease, and as the officer has said, this is not a planning issue.

CH:  the loss of employment land is the issue for him, not just because it is employment land but because of what precisely it is.  Regularly uses a garage near his home in Fairview, and the argument that this is a garage and it doesn’t matter where in the town it is situated misses the point.  The garage is well liked; people find it useful, use it because it is local.  It would be a shame to lose this kind of local facility, particularly as it is in walking distance for a lot of people.  It has been said that a garage is noisy and causes disturbance, but hasn’t found this the case in his experience, and considers it would be a real shame if the town is denuded of this type of community business and shops.  It would spoil the mix and leave an area solely residential, which is a big danger in this part of town.  In the town centre, we are trying to introduce residential property so that it isn’t all employment-based.  We need to be mindful not to lose small businesses in local areas.  People like them; there have been no other objections.  There is already planning permission for the adjacent land, and this additional bit of land won’t make a lot of difference.

AC:  hears what BF has said, but the point is that this is a viable existing business – it isn’t an empty  site or lacking a tenant.  As CH has said, it works well, and is a popular local facility.

MP, in response:

-       reminds Members that it is the land which is protected, not the existing garage facility.  They need to weigh the loss of the garage against the unlocking of the site for development of 11 houses.

KS:  this is a really difficult application.  What is proposed looks good and will improve the area, but the employment use in the area is crucial – there isn’t all that much employment in this part of town; it is a massive area of housing with very few opportunities for people to work locally.  Her head tells her that housing here will be good, but heart regrets the advent of communities with nothing in them but houses. 

GB:  with no more hands on show, will move to the vote.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

5 in support

8 in objection

NOT CARRIED

JF: moves to refuse on grounds of policy EM2 and NPPF paragraph 70

Vote on JF’s move to refuse on EM2 and NPPF paragraph 70

8 in support

5 in objection

REFUSE