Agenda item

MJC gave an overview of the next three applications to redevelop CBH-owned parking courts in the Lakeside area, which are close geographically with similar themes,.  The loss of parking space and implications for the surrounding streets is a major consideration; the applicant has considered mitigation and included a parking survey with the applications, which shows that there is capacity in nearby parking courts to relocate existing tenants.  CBH will provide additional parking courts, and there is capacity in the area for more on-street parking.  This is consistently the case across all three applications.  This first application involves the demolition of six garages and loss of ten parking spaces to accommodate two new houses.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Cllr Regan, on behalf of local residents, in objection

Is speaking at the request of residents of Coniston and Keswick Roads, who ask that Members note the petition signed by 17 residents.  One of the most serious issues is the heavy parking on Coniston Road leaves just a narrow passageway for vehicles to access St Margaret’s Community Hall at the end of the cul-de-sac, which is in constant use day and evening.  Two more houses with more car-parking needs will increase the problem to a dangerous level and make an intolerable situation worse.  Is disappointed in the findings of the Entran car parking survey and questions its validity in view of anti-social parking by some residents which restricts and blocks the flow of traffic in and out of Keswick and Coniston Roads and along Windermere Road.  These roads are also used for parking by Paragon Laundry staff.  Members should refer to local plan policy TP1(b). 

There is also the loss of privacy for Keswick Road residents, who would be overlooked by the new buildings which, from their elevated position, will be overbearing and cause loss of light to the rooms and gardens of the bungalows, most of which are occupied by elderly residents at home for most of the day.  This contravenes CP4(a). 

People who object are aware that more affordable homes are badly needed in Cheltenham, but the considerable problems this application will bring to their welfare and well-being will cause much concern.  The positioning of the new building should be the first and foremost consideration.  Asks that a recommendation be made that the Coniston Road ‘B’ site is demolished and made a residents-only parking area. 

Member debate:

PB:  asked if new car parking spaces will be provided before these are lost?

JF:  MJC indicated that other parking areas might be made available to compensate for those lost.  Has CBH indicated that it would be willing to open up other sites for parking in this area? Has first-hand experience of the problem of parking in this area – it is extremely difficult at night.

MJC, in response:

-       to PB, re phasing, this is at the discretion of CBH - CBC cannot influence the process – but would think that, as landlord, it would be appropriate for CBH to relocate its tenants as soon as possible;

-       to JF, there are a number of parking courts in this area, and CBH is looking at structured demolition to provide more car parking spaces. In connection with the demolitions under consideration tonight, they are looking at another site on Ennerdale Road;

-       paragraph 6.2.4 of the report sets out the strategy for garages and cars in the area: there are 48 garages but only 26 in use, hence the plan to demolish garages and relocate car parking spaces;

-       the demolition of parking courts does not form part of the planning applications; it is in CBH’s gift to mitigate the impact of their loss. Officers’ view is that the proposal is acceptable in isolation, and even more so with the mitigation measures.  How CBH proceeds is up to them.

CHay: hopes that the same applies to the telephone lines mentioned earlier.  We have a crying need for more social housing such as this.  The garage sites are under-utilised - many people with garages use them for storage – and CBH is looking to refurbish the garages it is keeping to make them more fit for purpose.  We should be encouraging the use of underused garage sites for families in need.  Regarding the houses to be built, if Members get the opportunity to visit these ‘fit for life’ houses as they are completed, they should take it. They are robust, built to last, with provision for stairlifts and lifts should tenants need them later – excellent-quality houses in the town, for people who are in desperate need of them.  A few less car-parking spaces is a price worth paying.

People’s fears may not be realised as was the case at Priors Road.  We should be supportive of this scheme.  Councillors could write to CBH to make sure that the phasing is right, as this work needs to be done with some care; it’s important that Members use their voice here.

PB:  agrees with all CHay has said.  CBH is to be congratulated for looking at its assets and assessing whether they are being best used for the good of the town.  Here are opportunities to turn messy areas into desperately needed houses, and it’s the best thing CBH can do.  Extra car parking is being provided, and any additional car movements is a small price to pay.  This is a well-thought-through scheme and has his support.

MJC, in response:

-       on the services issue, could raise CHay’s concerns as an informative.

CHay: - okay.

KS:  has noted one objector’s concerns that Paragon Laundry staff park on the surrounding streets.  Can anything to be done about this? Could a parking scheme be introduced this far out of town?

MJC, in response:

-       it would be difficult to introduce the Paragon Laundry issue to this planning application and ask CBH to mitigate any impact. This is a well-considered proposal and the traffic survey was carried out when Paragon staff would have been at work and showed there was spare capacity.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support

0 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT