Agenda item

MP introduced the application, which has been reduced in scale, regarding footprint, eaves and ridge height, and number of units.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Barnes, in view of the level of concern from residents of Asquith Road.  The officer recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr Stawinski, local resident, in objection

Local residents have four main objections, compounded by the lack of clear information on what the units will be used for.  Number 1 is increased size and height and the design, with reference to CP4 and CP7, which are not in keeping with the adjacent structures or the fact that the site is surrounded closely on three sides by houses and gardens.  The proposal is much higher and vertically imposing that the current building and will block light to properties in Asquith Road, especially outside the summer.  The exact dimensions are not specified, with the risk it will be higher and larger than the ambiguous drawings suggest. Residents urge that all dimensions should be clearly and publicly specified in advance of construction, so that they can be monitored and adhered to. 

Secondly, with reference to CP3, 4 and 5, what is the justification for doubling the number of units, so increasing noise, pollution and traffic, and what will they be used for? The awkward, narrow access doesn’t cater for large vehicles implied by the proposed double-height doors; vehicles using the site already block access to the rear of some properties on Asquith Road, and Churchill Road is almost always double-parked with limited visibility and risk to schoolchildren – this will make it worse.  These congested roads can’t cope with increased traffic or overflow parking.

Third, with reference to CP4, residents urge the Committee to include the environmental health officer’s suggested hours of operation, to protect the balance between residents’ amenity and business operation.  And finally, with reference to CP6, residents are very concerned that the mature ash tree in the south-west corner of the site is protected.  Its crown was significantly damaged before the TPO was put in place, and construction work could destroy the tree beyond recovery.   The sycamore tree on the Asquith Road boundary is also a cause for concern. 

Residents are not absolutely against the clean-up of this dilapidated site with sympathetic like-for-like development but do not believe the current plans strikes the appropriate balance between supporting local business and the needs of the local community.

Member debate:

SW:  with reference to the tree, there is normally protection for trees included in the conditions, to make sure that the developers don’t damage them.  If it is right to say not seen the actual sizes of the buildings – the heights should be made available for members of the public to address. 

BF:  is concerned about what we understand as ‘light industrial’ - a machine shop, a press shop, a printing shop? – all of which cause noise and pollution.  Doesn’t like mixing industrial units with housing.  People living near the Churchill Road site put up with chaos from articulated lorries delivering materials to the small light engineering company there, while Windsor Street has improved greatly since the industrial site has gone.  It’s strange to use this prime location for industrial purposes. 

AC:  is concerned about the tree.  The developer wants to reduce the crown -  would object to this most strongly, as there is no reason why the top of this tree should be lowered.

KS:  has a number of concerns about this application and will move to refuse.  On the question of the principle an industrial estate in a residential area, the buildings are old and need to be replaced, but it will cause problems for residents close by.  Houses in Asquith Road have short gardens backing on to the site; access roads are narrow and not designed for big lorries.  Situating an industrial estate at the end of a narrow access road is like trying to get a camel through the eye of a needle.  Welcomes the reduction in size of the units, but is concerned about the size of the roller door.  The new occupants will want to utilise the whole building, which will mean a mezzanine level – with the narrow restricted access, there will be safety implications and noise issues for residents backing on.  The amendments have not gone far enough, with no account given to the context of the site – an established residential area where people have the right to expect a certain quality of life.  This isn’t the right solution for the site; a like-for-like replacement of a single-storey building with the same footprint but more modern would be more appropriate.  Extractor fans could also be required and should be borne in mind. 

Residents want to know the end user of the site.  The given hours of operation are good, but as has been seen elsewhere locally, it takes nothing for the occupier to extend the hours and ruin the lives of people living nearby.  Residents are not against industrial units here, but it needs care, concern, clarity and transparency to ensure a better scheme and fewer problems for  businesses which take the units. 

MP, in response:

-       to SW, the drawings are to scale, and the heights of the buildings are given in the officer report;

-       to BF, B1 use is set out clearly at Para. 6.4.5 of the officer report, in line with the Town and Country Planning Act;

-       to AC, the tree survey proposes reduction of the crown of the tree and removal of lower branches, with a reduction from 16m to 12m.  The Trees Officer acknowledges that works were carried out to the tree before the TPO was made, and that it has already lost some branches, but supports the recommendation to reduce the height to give a balanced, symmetrical tree, which will grow well.  The proposed work to the tree would most likely be permitted outside this application.

GB:  finds this a very difficult application.  It was originally quite clearly overbearing and officers have worked hard to reduce its impact, but still has two main concerns.  Firstly the tree:  normally agrees with the Trees Officer’s advice but considers that the proposed reduction will make a big difference to aspect of the area and cannot see any justification for that.  Secondly, agrees with KS about the access roads.  The double height doors indicate that very big vehicles are expected, and it will be increasingly difficult for these to turn in and out of the site with other traffic in the road. 

PB:  Cheltenham is crying out for purpose-built industrial units.  Here an out-of-date, inadequate one is to be knocked down and it’s a shame that the applicant hasn’t been more sensitive in considering its replacement - the drawings show how much bigger the proposal is than what’s there now. It’s unfortunate that the applicant hasn’t taken on board the importance and significance of the tree.  Cannot support the scheme.  The principle is OK but not the scale and impact.

SW:  the top and branches of the tree are one consideration, but the roots must also be protected, to ensure that they aren’t accidentally bull-dozed, which could happen during building work. 

MS:  agrees – this tree is at risk.  Strongly recommends that the application is deferred to allow the officer to talk with the developer and redress concerns.  Otherwise it will be refused outright.

GB:  is MS proposing deferral, to discuss with the applicant the question of the tree and any leeway to reduce the size of the building?

MS:  yes, and acknowledging Members’ views about access and the heavy trucks going in and out.

KS:  has moved to refuse – does this not count now?

CL, in response:

-       the officer recommendation is the substantive motion, in this case to permit; normally this would be voted on first, and if lost, KS’s move to refuse would then be voted on;

-       however, the move to defer trumps the substantive motion to permit:  if it is carried, the application will be deferred; if it is not carried, the substantive motion – the officer recommendation to permit – will be voted on next; if this is lost, KS’s move to refuse will then be voted on.

FC:  in a situation such as this regarding the tree, a condition can be added to the effect that if it is damaged or dies as a result of the works, the developer must replace it with another of equal maturity –probably costing in the region of £50-100k.  Could this be done here?

BF:  there are considerations other than the tree here – in particular the noise levels, and what sort of the light industrial units will be installed. 

CHay:  is not comfortable with this application but provision of more small units in the town is important and this is already an industrial site.  Does not agree with other Members’ concerns about the use of articulated lorries being inevitable in view of the full height roller doors.  High-top vans can be used, and easily accommodated by the roads in the area.  Is concerned, however, about the increase in mass and size –but is this adequate grounds to turn the application down?  It would be helpful to have some idea of what sort of noise levels B1 use might mean for local residents.  BF’s comments about a machine shop or press shop aren’t relevant as these would not fit B1 use, which has to be acceptable in a residential area, and modern buildings would be built to modern standards with good sound insulation.  Businesses which set up here will need to be of the type that don’t need deliveries from articulated lorries.  We have to understand how things work in practice, not just consider potential disasters – you can’t run a business without the materials needed.  The real concern is the mass of the building and whether this is sufficient grounds on which to refuse.

JF:  the difference between refusal and deferral is quite clear.  If the application is deferred, it gives the chance for officers to liaise with the applicant about the tree, the noise and residents’ worries. 

MB:  considers there are enough reasons to refuse this application and isn’t sure that deferral is the best option.  Is concerned that the eaves height of the building will be doubled and will dominate houses several metres away – this is the main issue.

KS:  has sympathy with the idea of deferral but Members should bear in mind how lengthy consideration and discussions between officers and the applicant have got this application to where it is now.  If it is to be deferred, all the issues must be included.  Has experience of living behind similar units and is really concerned about sound-proofing, with the roller doors, machinery, radios etc which will have a considerable impact on residents.  Wants to be clear on this, and also on access.  The tree is important in this residential area, and the effect on parking also needs to be considered.  All these issues should be included in a deferral, but doubts any further progress can be.

PB:  if the proposal is deferred tonight, Members can always refuse it when it comes back to Committee if they aren’t happy with the responses. 

MP, in response:

-       the tree survey is accepted by the Trees Officer and Condition 5 covers root protection during construction;  much of the footprint of the building is already in place so not be much additional foundation work will be needed.  Protective barriers to British standard are proposed in the site;

-       the existing building had unrestricted B1 use, and a high level of sound insulation is proposed for the new development, included double-skin cladding and insulated roller doors;

-       as KS has said, this application has been around for a long time.  There have already been significant amendments, and consideration of the tree, and there are no objections from Gloucestershire Highways;

-       does not therefore see what deferral will achieve – the applicant has already made as many concessions as he is willing to make.

Vote on MS’s move to defer

9 in support

6 in objection

MOTION CARRIED – DEFER