Agenda item

 

Application Number:			14/01423/FUL
Location:	391 High Street, Cheltenham
Proposal:	Demolition of existing building and the construction of a four storey building for residential use together with three town houses and associated parking
View: Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit
Committee Decision:			Permit (with amended condition 1)
Letters of Rep:		11	Update Report:		None

 

Councillor Fletcher left the Chamber before the beginning of this item

 

CH introduced the application for redevelopment of a site within the Central Conservation Area.  The building was formerly occupied by Ace Bingo, and there are extant planning permissions for the adjacent site (formerly Widdows Motors and land between the former Widdows Motors and the application site). This application is for 11 x one/two-bedroomed render and red brick apartments fronting the High Street, with the top floor set back, and 3 x two-storey town houses to the back of the site, using similar materials.  Car parking for 14 vehicles is provided on site, together with bin and cycle storage. Access is via Milsom Street, Nailsworth Terrace and Hereford Place, with pedestrian access to the rear.  The recommendation is to permit.

 

 

Public Speaking

Mr David Keyte, agent on behalf of application, in support

Won’t repeat information in the detailed officer report but will concentrate on matters of vehicular access and parking.  The application is for residential use, accessed off a residential street in a sustainable location, with 14 on-site parking spaces proposed.  This is one per dwelling, policy compliant, and the same ratio as required on the Widdows Motors site and almost twice that approved on the adjoining site.  There have been many pre-app discussions with the Highway Authority, which has carried out a detailed analysis of highways matters and requested two car parking surveys of available spaces in surrounding streets.  These both confirm that there are spaces available, and this is referred to in the HA’s response – following its robust scrutiny of highway and transportation matters, it has raised on objections to the proposal.  As a comparison, the 11,500 square feet of floor space of the existing building could be used as a gym or other D2 use without the need for planning permission, despite such a use requiring up to 52 car parking spaces to be in accordance with the Local Plan.  It is clear in this context that there is considerable parking potential in the surrounding streets.  Inconsiderate parking provision can cause problems, but this development is policy compliant, in a very sustainable location, better provided that adjacent schemes, and supported by the Highways Authority.

 

Councillor Walklett, on behalf of local residents, in objection

Leaving aside the Civic Society’s and County Archaeology’s reservations on the uninspiring building and archaeologically sensitive site, is here to protest on behalf of local residents, concerned with the negative impact of the increased traffic on Hereford Place and Nailsworth Terrace. Does not agree with GCC Highways comments that there is sufficient on-street parking to accommodate overflow parking from the new residents and their visitors.  Estimates the Bingo Hall resulted in fewer than six traffic movements a day along Hereford Place, while the potential minimum from the proposed development is thirty.  Anyone who has attempted to negotiate these narrow streets, or who lives in this pleasant part of St Paul’s, will be appalled by the 5-8-fold increase in traffic.  As an aside, if the housing units had been affordable, a reduction in car ownership at the site would have been possible

UBICO already has difficulty providing collection services, and a local supermarket has reservations regarding home delivery to this neighbourhood.  Even the bus driver on Planning View chose not to access the site via Hereford Place. 

 

That said, neither he nor the local residents object to the principal of redeveloping this site to provide decent-quality local housing; parking and access are the issues of concern.  Appreciates the planning officer’s attempts to find a solution with the applicant and agent, as well as adjacent developers, but feels a ‘communal’ parking and access solution could be found with more time and consideration.  Would have preferred this to have been done before the application came to Planning Committee, and would therefore ask that the application is refused on traffic and highway safety grounds, or deferred until an acceptable solution to these problems is agreed.

 

 

Councillor Walklett then left the Chamber before the beginning of the debate of this item

 

 

Member debate:

PB:  is affordable housing a consideration for this type of development?  There is a lot of concern about the loss of employment land in the borough – the economic report alluded to this is an employment site, though he knows it is not, which means we can’t use loss of employment land as a refusal reason, even though quite a few people are employed there.  In future the Local Plan should re-consider the types of use considered as employment.

 

BF:  why is there no police report in view of the earlier comments from the Heritage and Conservation Officer, expressing concerns that access to the site was all from the rear?

 

CH, in response:

-       to PB, affordable housing requirements only apply to developments of 15 dwellings or more; 14 is the maximum number that can be accommodated in keeping with the urban grain of this site;

-       loss of employment land as a refusal reason would be difficult to defend – policy EM2 defines employment as B1, B2 or B8 uses and does not include D2 use.  D2 use doesn’t preclude other uses – such as cinema, music venue – and these have to be considered against viability; 

-       to BF, pedestrian access is to the front of the building for the 11 units, to the rear for the the three town houses.  There are two public rights of way around the building to provide additional access.

 

BF:  so if residents of the flats park at the back, will they have to walk all round the building or enter the site from the back? If so, would repeat his earlier comments about lack of a police report.

 

CH, in response:

-       residents will access the flats from the back;

-       the Conservation Officer’s concerns were with access from the front which was recessed with no front-facing door to the front.  This is no longer an issue;

-       initial thoughts from the police were not concerned with the specifics of the scheme as a whole but about the detail as it was built out.

 

CHay:  there isn’t enough detail about bin storage.  Recycling is important; has noted as a resident of the town that where there are communal bin stores, recycling rates seem very low.  Is not objecting to the scheme, but thinks we should insist on more detail about bin storage and how recycling will work.  Urges negotiation on this, and for all similar applications in the future if details aren’t provided. 

 

FC:  notes the suggested Condition 14 on Page 35 of the report – that refuse storage area should be completed before occupation and thereafter be kept free of obstruction – and also on Page 23, the lack of turning space for refuse vehicles.  How can it be ensured that the bins are emptied?  Also, on Page 22, regarding the proposed site access, how do officers anticipate the square will remain as a shared space given the narrowness of the access to the premises?

 

CH, in response:

-       bin storage and refuse collection is a sensitive issue and has been looked at very closely, in view of residents’ concerns and the uniqueness of the site.  UBICO has reviewed the plans, and CH met operatives at the site to understand how they can access the back of the site.  UBICO is confident there is no problem and that bin storage and recycling can be successfully achieved.

 

FC:  the report states there will be a significant increase in vehicular movements at Hereford Place, and the recommendation states that the shared space will be maintained.  How will that work?

 

CH, in response:

-       the comments on Page 22 are direct quotations from the Highways Officer who analysed the area in question.  Anything outside the red line of the application site is outside the control of the applicant.  It is used for informal car parking at the moment; this may continue or may be used in a different way, but won’t change in appearance.

 

MS:  believes the concept of providing 14 homes on this site is good.  Access arrangements are less than desirable but we cannot refuse the proposal on those grounds as both Gloucestershire Highways and UBICO have said it is OK.  It’s a shame we didn’t have a development brief for that area, which could have meant better access via Widdows, and a better-designed scheme to accommodate a considerable number of dwellings. 

 

SW:  regarding the public right of way – where is it and what are the issues we need to stick to in line with CROW requirements?

 

AC:  agrees with MS - it would have been better to develop the whole area, including the narrow strip of land to the side, which would have given more car parking and better access.  Could the developer be prevailed upon to buy that awkward little strip of land?

 

BF:  sees several problems here.  Highways doesn’t seem to have taken into account the residents’ parking scheme coming in Nailsworth Terrace and Hereford Place.  The 14 houses in Nailsworth Terrace will be entitled to two parking spaces each – from 8am to 8pm, there will be no parking option for anyone else, yet there is no mention or comment on this in the report.  The report also states that UBICO will use a small recycling vehicle to service the new development but those are going to be replaced, possibly with bigger vehicles.  Agrees with MS’s comments, and there is no guarantee that what has been granted permission will be built.  Will access to the Widdows site be from the rear or from Milsom Street – the area is a wilderness at present.

 

If the number of cars in Hereford Place doubles, the nature of the area will change beyond recognition, contrary to policy CP4. There will be double the number of houses,  with Milsom Street treble the number, completely changing the way of life in this area, and not for the better. Milsom Street is a two-way street, but two cars can’t pass without one mounting the pavement.    Residents’ parking and no additional street parking for this number of houses is ridiculous.  Is minded to propose refusal on CP4 and HS1.

 

PB:  supports the scheme – it is a good one.  Knows the area well having been its councillor in the past.  Any development in the town centre area will be difficult with regard to parking. Will every household apply for two parking spaces or is this scare-mongering?  The bingo hall would have generated a significant amount of traffic movements when in use.  This is a good scheme in a sustainable location, but why are developers allowed five years in which to start work?  The site next to this one is empty; it is a prominent High Street site, and housing is needed.  The condition should stipulate three years rather than five; would like to propose this amendment.

 

CHay:  also supports the scheme – we need housing, and this is the right sort of housing for the town centre – though echoes comments made previously regarding the lost opportunity for a more comprehensive development brief for the whole area.  Is disappointed that there is no provision for any commercial use fronting the High Street - this is a missed opportunity to improve the mix of shops in the area. Similar schemes elsewhere have included cafes or shops on the ground floor.

 

Regarding traffic movements, doubling the number of houses sounds horrendous but the reality is that not everyone will be driving in and out at the same time.  Problems anticipated in Tom Price Close and Fairview Road have not materialised.  The streets are narrow, but people get used to this and learn how to manage.  Fourteen additional dwellings won’t generate a huge amount of traffic movements.  No scheme is perfect; this could have been better but it uses the site relatively well.

 

CH, in response:

-       to SW, the two public rights of way which surround the site will not be affected by the development or changed in any way, so there is no real issue here;

-       to the overall question about the two adjoining sites, officers had discussions with the developers about the possibility of linking all three development sites in the area.  Two already have planning permission and could come forward at any time.  The site being discussed tonight does not have planning permission and needs to be considered on its own merits, though the three developers are aware of the other sites and it’s hoped they will work in a joined-up way;

-       to PB regarding the five-year condition, the length of time has yo-yo’d between three and five years in line with the government’s desire to bring developments forward more speedily, then to allow more time during recession periods.  There is scope to give consideration to this.  CBC’s position is to allow five years across the board, but three years could be conditioned.

 

BF:  in response to PB’s point about residents’ parking, people will be allowed to apply for two permits per household.  A similar scheme is St Paul’s has reduced the amount of parking available, and there are a lot of HMOs which may have as many as five cars per households - landlords are likely to apply for permits and add it to the rent.  Most households have more than one car.

 

GB:  does PB still want to propose an amendment to condition in respect of time to start?

 

PB:  yes, would like to reduce it to three years - not unreasonable for an important and prominent site. 

 

CL, in response:

-       the proposal can be taken as an amendment to the officer recommendation to permit with five years.  If the move to reduce this to three years is carried, the amended recommendation can then be voted on as a whole.

 

CHay: supports this amendment, as the High Street is in need of regeneration  and needs this to be moved along; leaving sites empty will depress improvements to the High Street. 

 

 

Vote on PB’s move to amend Condition 1 as follows:

 

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five three years from the date of this permission.

 

13 in support – unanimous

Motion carried; amended condition is part of substantive motion.

 

 

AC:  is not proposing deferral, but it the decision were to be deferred, would there be any chance that the three sites could be considered together? The view is that this would be a much better deal.

 

CH, in response:

-       this isn’t a reasonable request at this stage; the developers will want their planning permission is place before engaging in any discussions, so as to be equal partners in any discussions.

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit, with amended Condition 1 as above

10 in support

3 in objection

PERMIT