Agenda item

EB introduced the application as above, which was originally for five dwellings on the former lock-up garage site. The applicant volunteered to reduce the scheme to four units after discussion with planning officers.  It is at Committee because Cheltenham Borough Council owns the land, and Cheltenham Borough Homes is the applicant. There is a report update, with additional information provided by the applicant:  there were originally 19 lock-up garages on the site, but these have now been cleared.  Three neighbours have right of way across the site, and information about that has been provided.  The Highways Authority has also updated its response, with a further explanation of why it has no objection to the scheme.  In light of this, however, five additional conditions have been added.  Finally, Members should be aware that there is a typographical error at paragraph 6.13 which should read ‘3 x three-bedroomed dwellings and 1 x two-bed…’.

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Member debate:

CH:  one of the representations refers to gated access to the back of Home Close, and to problems with anti-social behaviour and drug-dealing in the alleyway.  Does not know the area well enough to comment, but if there is an issue here, why wasn’t gating considered and is the objector now happy with what is proposed?

SW:  when this was a garage site, it was very much enclosed; youngsters got in and got up to no good.  Once the site is developed, however, it won’t be as attractive for the likes of drug-dealing, rubbish dumping etc.  Would have expected to see more properties on the site, and is glad about the lower density.  Is also glad about the inclusion of photo-voltaic panels, and would like to see these as standard everywhere.

PB:  the highways report states that lines will be used to restrict parking near the junction, but doesn’t say what sort of lines.  This is a busy junction, near shops, where people are likely to park for short spells.  Will there be double yellow lines at the junction to ensure highway safety?

EB, in response:

-       to CH, regarding gating, the original proposal involved blocking off the footpath from Ashlands Road to the top corner of the site.  The neighbour expressed concern that this would cause a dead-end alley and provide an enclosed space which could attract anti-social behaviour and related problems.  In the latest revision, the applicant has removed the gate, and retained this area as an open space.  The neighbour’s issue has thus been addressed; he has been emailed and provided no further feedback;

-       to PB, highways officers have specifically requested a white line rather than double yellow lines, parallel with Hesters Way Road at the top, to highlight to local people that there is an access there.

BF:  assumes that there will be public street lighting on the new estate?  When the road is adopted by the county council, LED streetlights should be stipulated, compatible with streetlights elsewhere.

KS:  this is a useful development, and should improve the area.  On Planning View, was concerned about a row of attractive trees adjacent to Plot 4, which could cause potential conflict in the future.  Are these in private ownership?  How has the design been arrived at with the trees so close? 

GB:  Members were told on site that the crowns of the trees would be lifted, with the approval of the house owner.

PB:  is reluctant to labour the point on parking, but with just a single white line, what will stop people from parking their cars near the corners to go to the shops?

CH:  regarding the gating issue, now understands that the alleyway will not be blocked off and takes the view that a housing development may be less likely than a garage site to attract anti-social behaviour.  However, the alleyway serves three or four houses, and it may have been better to close it off, with residents of those houses only able to access it.  Why wasn’t this solution considered?

PT:  it was very obvious on Planning View that the alleyway is well-used as a shortcut between Hesters Way Road and Ashlands Road; Members saw mothers with pushchairs and children using it.  It certainly didn’t look unused.

EB, in response:

-       to KS, regarding the trees, this is a group of ash trees referred to specifically in the report.  Trees officers were initially concerned about the impact on these trees, but have provided additional guidance and concluded that they can be retained.  Crown-lifting will be needed, but the future well-being of the trees will not be compromised.  If Members wish, an informative about leaf-guards can be added, to ensure their further protection;

-       regarding parking, understands there could be  a separate process to be taken whereby a Traffic Regulation Order can be applied for.  This would be reactionary rather than pre-emptive;

-       regarding the gate and the footpath between Ashlands Road and Hesters Way Road, this is a general access and right of way, not specific to the few houses which back onto it.  It is important to keep it open, and the highways authority welcomes the fact that it will remain;

-       as an affordable housing scheme, it would have to meet Secured by Design standards, and there is no evidence of the need to close off the alleyway at this stage.

SW:  regarding the parking issue, it is an offence to park within 10 metres of a junction, and it is the white line that makes it a junction, so anyone parking on the white line will be committing an offence. People may park there regardless, but he and Councillor Flynn can make sure the police are aware of potential issues here. 

DS:  are the roads on the site public highway or to be adopted or private land?  It could be difficult to impose traffic and parking regulations if unadopted.

EB, in response:

-       the site is currently private land, but it is CBH’s intention to ask for the roads to be adopted.  Gloucestershire Highways expects this to happen.

KS:  on Planning View, Members were told that the crowns of the trees would be lifted to protect them and allow the development, but these will grow back and there could be conflict here.  Regarding access for emergency services, is there enough space for a fire engine to reach the houses?  There is no highway comment about this.

EB, in response:

-       there is a condition recommending the requirement of a fire hydrant.  Questioned the highways officer about access for emergency vehicles; he confirmed that it is wide enough.

GB:  would Members like to include an informative about leaf guards, if approved?

(General response: yes.)

Vote on officer recommendation to permit, with added informative in respect of leaf-guards

14 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

The Chair moved consideration of 15/01405/FUL 2 Highland Road up the agenda, as the only two public speakers present were registered to speak on that application only.