The Reddings Residents’ Association C/o Fayrecroft, North Road East, Cheltenham, GL51 6RE
The Planning Inspectorate 3/O Kite Wing Quay House 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6PN By Email : [email protected]
Your Reference: APP/B1605/W/18/3200395
20 June 2018
Dear Ms Humphrey/Inspector
Inspectorate reference: APP/B1605/W/18/3200395 We are against the appeal proposals –– Land at North Road West and Grovefield Way, Cheltenham (planning reference: 16/02208/FUL)
Introduction
We appreciate that there is a great deal to read on the objections submitted by local residents and businesses and within our report of March 2017, all of which we trust is within your bundle of documents. We now make comment in respect of the officer’s report to supplement our submission to the officers and planning committee. We believe that we offer relevant points of balance against the development were not included or, we consider, were not adequately set out in the officer’s report. As the appellant’s case on appeal is largely based on the officer’s report, we respectively seek to add these points of balance now by summarising our comments against the paragraph numbering of the officer’s report. As such, some of the reasons for our disagreement with the appellant’s case reflect those of the LPA, but other points are our own reasons that we feel were overlooked by the officer. To be clear, we are not opposed to B1 development on the site, we are strongly opposed to the introduction of other classes of development that the appellant seeks to introduce. 338 local objections have been made to this proposal. In addition an 850 signature petition was been submitted to the LPA in response to this proposal. Alex Chalk MP is one of the 337 objectors, which also include ward councillors, residents, playgroups, Asda, local shop and childcare businesses, parish council and other local residents’ associations. The Appellant states that the proposed scheme is required locally and that it does not create an unattractive street scape, or poor sense of place runs contrary to the evidence in these objections and is somewhat myopic.
Grovefield Aldi 2017/Objection Grovefield – submission to inspector – June 2018
Our illustrated initial report in March 2017 sets out the case for refusal, based on the history of the site. We discussed it with the planning officers. If you do not have a copy, a link is attached below: https://democracy.cheltenham.gov.uk/documents/s24557/App%203%20- %20Reddings%20Resident%20Association%20-%20Objection%20Report.pdf
Following the initial planning application in December 2016, the appellant revised their application significantly in August 2017. We reviewed the information in detail again and made a further objection in September 2017, as did most of the original objectors. Our objection included analysis of the site in the context of the emerging JCS and Local Plan. We assume that you have been provided with a copy of these documents also. The majority of the objections received contain at least two entries for each objector, relating to the various resubmissions by the applicant. Many of these list multiple reasons for their objection, and we do find the officer’s summary to be somewhat simplistic. We met with and discussed the appellants’ proposals with the officers in formal meetings on two occasions, as well as exchanging many telephone calls and emails. The appellant has never made any attempt to engage in a community consultation at any time, either in respect of this application, or the subsequent current application reference 18/01004/FUL, where, at the time of writing, 128 objections have again been raised by local residents. We thank you for your consideration of our points.
The Officer’s Report
1.1.4 – The site has always been in the greenbelt and makes significant contribution on all five tests. Paragraph 4.6.21 of the JCS will in time remove the greenbelt status from the site. We believe the Inspector Ord’s intention in the JCS was to follow the precedent set for other Green Belt sites, i.e., that the boundary should only be moved once the permissions granted on the site are fully implemented. Paul Fong, of Hunter Page Planning, requested this Green Belt amendment, not the authority. Cheltenham Borough Council (CBC) voted to approve the JCS on 11 December 2017. After that, there was a 6 week period in which a request for a judicial review could be raised. The planning committee consideration of the application determined on 14 December 2017, i.e. within the period when the JCS, had not been fully implemented. As such, we suggest therefore that at all material times, from the date of the application to its determination, the site remained within the Green Belt boundary and that it will, until the site is built out. We say this because the wording of the JCS is not explicit in setting out the date when this portion of the site is to be removed from the Greenbelt. The precedence is that the site is being “built out”. However, no work has commenced on this site to date. Further, the appellant has been very precise in not connecting this application with the neighbouring BMW showroom development. As such, we believe that the wording adopted by Inspector Ord’s in the JCS supports removal of the BMW site from the Greenbelt because it has been built out. It may also support removal of the Greenbelt status once this site starts to be built out. However, no work has started and indeed the nature of what is to be built has yet to be decided (that is the essence of this enquiry). As such, we submit that the site should still be regarded as being within the Greenbelt. Once built, it will still adjoin the Green Belt and will be at the gateway entrance to Cheltenham. The site was originally permissioned for 6.57 hectares of B Class development in 2007. Of this, 2.44 hectare has been taken by the BMW site in applications approved in 2013 and 2014. BMW finally opened in September 2017 and the effects on traffic since it opened can now be judged. The appellant’s studies and traffic models do not take this into account, neither do they account for the traffic evidence within the JCS which identifies the need to double the capacity of the adjoining Park and Ride. Page 2 of 20
The failure of BMW to implement their travel plan (properly, or at all) and instead to use 80 parking spaces in the Park and Ride, as well as to rely on nearby road parking in local roads, has added significantly to congestion and significant deterioration in local air quality. This is entirely contrary to the aims and aspirations of the Local Plan, the JCS and the NPPF. This application for the remaining 4.15 hectare site adjoining the BMW site already does have an extant outline permission for B1 development, which we and the residents support. However, no application for A1 and A3 retail development, or D1 nursery, use has ever been considered, or permissioned, by the planning committee, or the Secretary of State for this site. None of these A, or D classes of use were ever in the contemplation of the Planning Inspectorate in 2007 when permission for B class development was granted in 2007 for very special circumstances. We note that all of those special reasons are no longer possible, save for the creation of B class jobs. This application seeks to remove that “final special circumstance”. If that special circumstance no longer exists, then the whole reason or removing the site from the greenbelt needs to be revisited as the inspector set out in the 2007 award.
1.1.6 – The Officer’s report does not say that Cheltenham Borough Council vigorously resisted development on this premier greenbelt site until 2007 when the Planning Inspectorate agreed with the then-applicant that there were exceptional circumstances to permit B class development on the site. The “very special circumstances” were that the site was the largest available in Cheltenham for B class development for which there was a significant dearth in the borough. Also, that it would provide an extension for the Park and Ride. The Inspector noted in 2007 that similar sites had previously been granted permission but had become “mixed development” sites through subsequent applications and approvals, thereby reducing the available area for B1 development on those sites to less than the 6.57 hectares that was offered by the site at Grovefield Way. This application risks compounding that same historic mistake by taking a prime B1 site, upon which a car motor showroom development as already been conceded to 37% of its area. In making the application for the showroom, the developer stated that it would bring forward B1 employment. It hasn’t. This application seeks to further erode primary potential of the site to deliver the county aim of providing high quality, high value new jobs. Instead it will provide relatively low paid, low employment density retail jobs in the phase where “full” permission is sought. It makes little more than a gesture with the “phase 2” outline permission, which is simply a vehicle to promote the “retail phase” by promising B1 jobs later.
The 2007 proposal approved by the Inspector was for “low key” development, sympathetic with the greenbelt setting, which was to comprise two storey buildings along a central spine road. The Inspector noted that there may be potential for three storey buildings adjacent to the boundary with the A40. There was a great deal of enhanced landscaping to the boundaries and much landscaping within the development itself.
In 2007 there was also an area into which the Park and Ride could be expanded horizontally. However, that area is now occupied by the BMW showroom. This means that the JCS now sets out that a multi- storey car-park will be required to provide the 1000 parking spaces that are projected to be necessary to bring forward the Cyber Park development in Neighbouring West Cheltenham. The construction of a multi-storey car park will be at much greater cost to the public purse, than it would be if the principle of the agreements in the 2007 award had been complied with and the land had been acquired by the County Council as one of the “special circumstances” upon which the 2007 inspector’s award was made.
Various Section 106 monies have been set aside from numerous housing and employment developments in The Reddings for local infrastructure improvements, including traffic management systems on the local roads. None of the £2.1m Section 106 money derived from development in The Reddings has been spent locally. An attempt to devise a “traffic calming” solution along the road named The Reddings (which would be a major feeder road to the Grovefield site) was abandoned. This was because it is a major bus route, the increased sound, and noise pollution as vehicles slow then accelerate was deemed unacceptable. Page 3 of 20
It is also noted that traffic mitigation measures in the JCS require significant upgrades to the frequency of the 97/98 bus route along this main collector road for the village.
In 2007, the Inspector said there were to be occasional glimpses through enhanced soft landscaping and tree planting to promote indigenous wildlife. Instead the developer has felled trees and hedges to “expose” the BMW building. This application proposes to remove more trees and hedges. In turn, that, will further increase the noise, fume and light permeation from the A40, this site and Grovefield Way which reaches nearby dwellings.
In 2007, the Inspector envisaged that the need for this B class employment land would last until at least 2011. The applicant did not develop the site. Indeed, the permission lapsed before it was later reinstated to give permission for 22,000m² of B1 employment, creating 1200 jobs. The area of B1 employment was reduced to 16,800m² in 2014, following the construction of the BMW building (against much local opposition). BMW was permissioned as Sui Generis with B class elements.
1.17 – The current permissioned 16,800m² of B1 employment land on the site will be reduced further by this hybrid application. The full application seeks consent for 5034m² of commercial office space with 3 storey office buildings throughout the site. An outline permission for further offices towards the rear of the site would add an additional 8034m², making a total of 13,068 m². The outline element is, as the officer notes, purely indicative at this stage. However, this “outline phase (to which the appellant does not commit himself) represents 57% of the total number of jobs that the applicant is forecasting. There is a very real risk that having set a precedent for A1, A3 and D1 use on the site, the appellant may seek to demonstrate that he has been unable to generate interest in the B1 units and that the whole of the site should now be given over to retail. This potential must be resisted at all costs.
1.1.10 – Environmental impact. The site is home to a great variety of wildlife, including hedgehog and roe deer, mammals, amphibian, birds and inserts. Residents have forwarded many pages of evidence and records to the Council’s consultee: (Gloucestershire Centre for Environmental Records (GCER)) detailing protected species activity on the site. The evidence document was also forwarded to the Planning Officers. The information appears to have been ignored. A copy is attached in case it is not within your bundle of documents.
2 – Constraints and relevant planning history
Having gained initial permission for the sui generis BMW dealership, the developer submitted several further subsequent applications to make it taller, larger, and to remove more trees (including a protected oak). Also to create attenuation ponds because the submitted reports and proposals for land drainage were unreliable and required amendment. The reports submitted for this current application also have a “light touch” on matters of detail and substance. We believe that if approved, amendments will be requested as the applicant finds that he cannot build what he is presenting here, particularly in relation to site levels, mains drainage connections and storm water drainage. Additional applications for sewerage pumping stations and other variations seem to be inevitable. Permission should not be in contemplation until the appellant can show by detailed design that the “aspirations” which they set are actually buildable. We do not believe that they are, and CBC will have difficulty enforcing them.
BMW have not implemented their travel plan and CBC have not enforced it. Consequently, the area and Park and Ride has become heavily congested during Monday to Friday periods with frequent attendance by the police in respect of inconsiderately parked cars. BMW have not engaged with us or the community at large in respect of the problems that are being caused by them since they opened in September 2017. Page 4 of 20
Cotswold BMW and Hinton Developments have a common majority shareholder, (Peter Harris). As such, there is reason to believe that the appellant’s travel plan, (which they identify as “aspirational” in many places) is no more realistic than that which was advanced by BMW. We do not believe that it will be put in place, and we do not believe that CBC will enforce any conditions that are placed on any approvals that are granted, based on the historic evidence before us.
In the 2018 application, many consultees have not responded at the time of writing. The application is largely unchanged apart from some aesthetic improvements, so they may not respond. However, the Tree Officer and the Flood Authority now raise concerns on matters that we and many residents raised in their objections to this application. We therefore believe them to be pertinent to this appeal and we attach copies. We also attach copies of reports that were raised by the Local Authority in 1989 and 1992. The first deals with environmental considerations for The Reddings when Grovefield Way was constructed and bisected the village (that has been in existence since 1560). The second deals with drainage capacity and flooding issues that existed at that time. No significant work has been subsequently undertaken to improve the drainage capacity since the dates of those reports, despite the numerous other developments that Grovefield Way has facilitated since 1992. Some of the new developments utilise other parts of the drainage network that have a separate storm and foul water drainage system. However, BMW and this site will utilise the “old” combined system which is already over-capacity and many of the drainage ditches are compromised. Since BMW was constructed, flooding has frequently returned to the “West Reddings” area, and to the BMW site itself. Our report of March 2017 includes a letter from a BMW director in this connection. The application must not be given consideration until drawings, reports and surveys of the mains system are provided in regard to the capacity of the drainage system, its levels, the levels of the “buried” and the proposed buildings on the site (both phases) where there are very clearly inadequate falls to lay a gravity drainage system. A “condition” on an approval is simply not satisfactory.
Page 5 of 20
3 Consultations
Loss of greenbelt land NPPF paragraph 80 – The Officer sets out the five purposes served by greenbelts; all of which are satisfied by this site. NPPF Paragraph 87 – This confirms that inappropriate development is harmful to the greenbelt and should not be approved, except in very special circumstances. NPPF Paragraph 88 – Sets out the very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the greenbelt is clearly outweighed by other considerations. Cheltenham Borough Local Plan – Policy CO6 is retained and presumes against development in the greenbelt, except in very special circumstances. Retail is not a special circumstance.
Consultee comments (2017)
Land drainage - Since BMW development earthworks began, local houses and roads have started to flood regularly before the A40 Golden Valley Bypass was built (circa 1980) and subsequently Grovefield Way (1992), the BMW and adjoining site which is the subject of this appeal was part of uninterrupted farmland stretching through from North Road to what is now the Old Gloucester Road (the then A40).
The elevation of the site related more or less to that of the road levels of North Road and was roughly that of that of Shakespeare Cottages.
The storm water from the area discharges into the unnamed brook across this land, which we refer to below as “Reddings Brook”, to avoid confusion with Hatherley Brook further to the North. Before the development that has occurred locally since 1992, it was serving only the original Cottages along North Road and The Reddings and also, directly after the war some of the Prefabricated houses.
Into Reddings Brook through subsequent developments came all of the “new” Closes in North Road and Old Reddings Road to the current date. None of these developments apparently affected the ability of Reddings Brook to serve the area.
The large industrial developments, on the former Dowty site and a large car park, (which is now the site of B&Q), Dowty’s Grovefield House (now Nuffield Hospital). Asda, B&Q and Pure offices can probably be discounted as adding more surface water, because they only replace what Dowty had previously constructed as either industrial buildings, or hard surfaced areas.
The engineering works of both the Golden Valley Bypass and Grovefield Way both dealt with the additional run off and were successful in maintaining the status quo regarding the ability of Reddings Brook to drain the area although downstream, the water table at Dundry Nurseries was raised as a consequence.
A very detailed historic record was prepared by Dowty in respect of Reddings Brook to assess the area to which it historically served. The record is set out below this for your information. (In italics)
You will note that the brook starts at the Old Reddings Road, Humpty Dumps, where it runs probably along an old agricultural ditch. Its purpose was most likely needed to drain the railway construction spoil and nothing more.
Through many years the brook has never been seen to be running other than at a fast trickle over the brook bed and never at anything of significant depth. If observed today it is similar which leaves any development West of Grovefield Way as being the reason for the cause for any flooding of this watercourse. Page 6 of 20
Historic context can be defined as being the date at which Grovefield Way was constructed (1992) as up to this date, there were no reported problems. It should be noted that the road drainage from the B&Q Roundabout up to where Grovefield Way crosses this brook, also discharges into the brook
GCC Highways (for Grovefield Way) and the Highways agency (for A40 Golden Valley Bypass) have all the engineering details on which the hydraulics calculations were made. They should be called upon to submit it in evidence. Alternatively, the appellant should be made to survey and calculate. Flooding has already occurred to the BMW site and the surface soils are regularly washing into houses and drainage ditches despite what the myopic “expert” reports that accompany the application say. The appellant and LPA will hopefully agree therefore that it is simply not equitable to confine their considerations to the site boundaries and leave the tax payer and local residents to suffer the flooding as well as costs associated with the improvements schemes that will be required by the further development of this site.
History Of Reddings Brook (RB)
1. The 1923 map shows the head of, what we have called, Reddings Brook (RB), for the purposes of this report, because we actually don’t know its name. The head is near the earth mounds in/by the allotments on Reddings Road (Humpty Dumps). This may have been part of a longer watercourse pre-railway but the railway cutting makes the head near the earth mounds created from excavated railway cutting material spread out to form the mounds. It is assumed that CBC are responsible, as riparian owner, for this section.
2. RB runs across Reddings Road and at the rear of the houses in Oakbrook Drive and the public footpath serving the bottom end of Unwin Road. The CBC as riparian owner are responsible for this section being next to public footpath land.
3. When it leaves the section covered by the footpath, it becomes the responsibility of the owners of the property bordering RB each being responsible for the brook up to its perceived centreline. If the property was sold with land limiting the property to a boundary short of the top of the watercourse then it is not the responsibility of the property owner but STWL.
4. Where RB emerged from the residential properties behind what was Dowty Fuel Systems (now Asda) the riparian ownership rules applied, as Dowty’s owned, up to the centre of the watercourse. Whoever has acquired the freehold of the land has acquired the same obligations as riparian ownership places the maintenance of the watercourse with the land owner.
5. The footpath behind Asda (previously Dowty) being public was extended along the watercourse to allow diversion to its current location. Dowty paid for this but the ownership is vested in CBC. Although Dowty did not own this section of RB they still undertook to maintain it for the benefit of those using the footpath (many Dowty employees) as they did for all the remainder of the watercourse behind B&Q as land ownership was to the centre of the brook and was again subject to riparian ownership. The new owner of the freehold of the B&Q site would have acquired these conditions but with the proximity of the security fence we doubt that much maintenance has been done. Generally a volunteer group of local residents maintain it on an ad-hoc basis now.
6. Houses in Tylea Close, Roxton Drive, Northbank Close and all new housing further down North Road East that back onto RB will be subject to riparian ownership conditions unless specifically exempt through the registered property boundary being on the top of the bank. The fence being placed on top of the watercourse bank does not necessarily denote the limit of ownership if it is there purely for security measures. This is where it becomes difficult to enforce properties to carry out any work to maintain the watercourse.
Page 7 of 20
7. RB continues on, until it leaves the former Dowty property boundaries, somewhere on the site that is now owned by GCC for the Park & Ride.
8. When the new SW distributor road (Grovefield Way) was built the watercourse was routed through a pipe culvert under the road and part (maybe all) of the road drainage was designed to run into RB. It is reasonable to assume the GCC (Halcrow) would have done all of the calculations to establish that RB was capable of taking the additional water run-off from the road and Park & Ride at the respective stages of creation
9. From this point RB is sited entirely within the site now occupied by BMW and as such they are, under riparian rules, obligated to maintain the watercourse.
10. Any changes to the watercourse on their land becomes their responsibility as well, but would need approval of the Environment Agency/GCC who would be guided by the BMW’s/developer for the hybrid/B1 site own statements, unless it is a major watercourse wherein the Agency/GCC would expect STWL to design it.
11. At the time of Dowty ownership, there were never any occasions where flooding of RB occurred although at times it did run pretty high.
12. In summary up to this section of RB; between all the owners and public bodies that would have had an input, RB did what it was expected to do with no adverse problems to the area.
13.When RB leaves the BMW/application site through a pipe culvert it crosses highway land owned by what would be Highways for England and technically they should maintain the pipe and ensure uninterrupted passage of the watercourse ,although they may have arrangements in place with GCC/STWL for maintenance. Again we can only assume that at the time of the construction of the M5, the flows along RB at that time were taken into account in sizing the pipe under the road and would, we assume, also have included an allowance for a 1 in 100 year flood occurrence. Not the 1 in 100 year plus 30% current requirement of the EA.
14. Where RB runs in ditches along road verges (as is indicated on the 1923 map) in Bamfurlong lane towards Dundry then responsibility for maintenance lies with GCC/STWL until it runs through Dundry when it becomes their sole responsibility and then shared responsibility at the rear. The watercourse Dundry being nearest to the M5 may actually be on the course of another local unnamed brook as the 1923 map identifies another one that appears to start where the Highways site is now and is still noted as running alongside and under the M5 on the M5 junction plan which I also marked in blue. Dundry is now suffering considerable repetitive flooding since the development on the application site began with BMW.
15. Further downstream RB meanders through the fields until it meets and discharges into Hatherley Brook roughly in the vicinity of Staverton Bridge Sewage pumping station. Clearly unless it forms a boundary between different land ownerships the maintenance of RB lies with the land owner or jointly if it is on the boundary.
The flooding and run-off from the Grovefield Way site that the BMW director refers to is assumed to result from Reddings Brook, being overwhelmed, backing up and entering the site. This additional run-off water is not included in any of the applicant’s design assessments for this site, so flooded the BMW site and was passed onto neighbour’s houses and gardens, contrary to the NPPF. Due to the age of the original market village, the main sewers are combined foul and storm and are easily overwhelmed; manhole covers are lifted by the pressure, and foul sewage is discharged. This is happening very regularly. An impartial assessment of the capacity of the drainage system is essential before any more development occurs on the site.
Page 8 of 20
The applicant should be required to set aside Section 106 money to improve the capacity before it becomes a necessary public expense and to undertake the improvement before any work on the site is undertaken. The developer is aware of the problems since August 2016. Further development will exacerbate the problems. A significant increase in site attenuation is required to contain the run-off from Grovefield Way onto the site to comply with the NPPF and Environment Agency requirements. The storm water run-off from this development into the small, “unnamed” watercourse is stated at 10.2 litres per second. This is the same as the discharge from one fireman’s hose, working at full pressure. Combining the discharge from BMW and the phase 1 and phase 2 developments will be just less than the equivalent of two fire hoses discharging into the small existing ditch. The capacity of RB and Hatherley Brook does not appear to have been checked at all. This is not satisfactory. The architect’s panel regard the proposed architecture as very bland and uninspiring. Parish Council object. Ward Councillors object MP Alex Chalk objects to the general principal that that retail development is necessary to bring forward the B1 development. He also makes the point that the mistakes made in the BMW approval process must not be allowed to compound the problems for The Reddings and erode the B1 employment on the site any further. Consultee “Urban Design” consider that the planting appears random with no evidence of a planting strategy and they note unmatched legends and unexplained symbols in the proposals and elevation drawings of offices which do not reflect the proposed design. We would add that there are few native species included and no details are given as to the size of them at the time of planting. Much of the landscaping planted by BMW has died and has not been replaced. Local businesses (including Asda), playgroup, childminders, nursery and community centre object. As we note in respect of the retail/economic arguments under Section 6 of the officer comments that follow below, if this development is permitted, it will result in existing job losses to local supermarkets and threaten the continuing existence of many small local retail businesses. Being heavily reliant on the playgroup for funding, the viability of the community centre itself could then be in question. There is an 850 signature petition of objection. As the site is within a residential area, Environmental Health seek to limit construction times on the site in order to abate nuisance to neighbours. However, they seem to regard the 05:30 to 23:00 hours, 7 days per week, opening hours and the 24 hour high intensity lighting to be acceptable once it is constructed. A stream of vehicles will be travelling around car parks and leaving site between 05:30 and 23:00 hours, 7 days per week, with headlights shining into neighbours’ windows. It is unacceptable and there is no local precedent for it, despite the extensive local development over the past 20 years. Conversely, a B1 development will largely only impact on the community between 08:00 to 18:00 hours, Monday to Friday, leaving residents free to enjoy their gardens and open windows during evenings and weekends. There is no mention of litter problems or fumes from stationary traffic and the risk to pedestrians or the children in the nursery in the appellant’s submission. The Defra pollution exceedance monitoring site on the A40 is very close, and the effect of this proposal must be properly investigated and mitigated before development can commence. Cheltenham Civic Society regard the development as being unsuitable on the gateway to a regency town.
Page 9 of 20
Publicity and representations There have been many detailed objections raised by residents and local businesses. If the Inspector has time to review all of the comments, they will see that the somewhat simplistic list of headings included by the officer does not do the objectors any justice. We would refer the Inspector to the spreadsheet analysis within the TRRA report (pages 63 -67) which makes a much more detailed review. We had hoped that the officers would use this as a starting point in their own review and summary to the planning committee.
Officer’s comments 6.1 – It is agreed that the principle of B class development on the site for very special circumstances has been established. The “principle of development” has not been established. 6.2 – The very special circumstance was in relation to the size of the site in 2007 to allow construction of a large B1 park, as well as the Park and Ride extension and other exceptional circumstances. The exceptional circumstance was not “due to the serious shortfall in local employment land provision”, as the Officer simplistically states. In granting permission for the BMW dealership, the main promoting principle to the committee was that it would “bring forward B1 development on the site”. It has not. The developer is now using the same advocacy argument to introduce retail and childcare elements. If A and D class is established on the site and if the green belt presumption against development is lost, the developer may make a future case for more retail and he would have a precedent established by this permission
6.1 Greenbelt We cannot identify what special circumstance is being advocated for retail and non-B class development on this site. The argument seems to come down to one of a definition of “employment land”. It is argued that supermarket, coffee shop and childcare are all part of modern business park developments. However, coffee, sandwiches, snacks, restaurant meals and café facilities are already available within a 5 minutes’ walk of the proposed Aldi and Costa at: o BMW’s own café for its customers o Harvester pub and restaurant, also serving coffee o KFC restaurant and drive through, also serving coffee o Home Bargains, with grocery sales, including sandwiches and snacks o Asda o Asda café o Permanent fast food and beverage van in the B&Q car park. o B&Q snack vending Any user of the proposed site is already spoilt for choice, and additional provision is unnecessary. Most of the food outlets already have “take away” coffee for sale. We believe that permitting A1 and A3 class will be a thin entering wedge to a future application for more retail on this site. The apparent reluctance of the developer to even commit to anything other than outline permission on the part of the site where the majority of the B1 jobs will be created stands as testimony to our concerns.
Page 10 of 20
In the Retail Statements - neither DPP on behalf of the applicant, nor DPDS Consulting on behalf of Cheltenham Council list the nearby facilities of the café within Asda. Neither do they note the presence of the Harvester or KFC; nor the food and beverage van. It is worth noting again, that the permission granted in 2007, following the public enquiry, concluded that there was a need for a large scale B Class development on the site, but that the very special circumstances for development in the Green Belt should be reviewed in 2011. The retail element is entirely contrary to the 2007 permission and to current national and local policy. No circumstances have been demonstrated by the applicant to justify this breach and most of the exceptional circumstances which led to the granting of initial permission in 2007 have now also been removed by this proposal. The developer refers to the “fall-back position” on the extant OUTLINE permission for B1 offices. This would be welcome, subject to: a detailed application addressing the local issues created by BMW and other implemented permissions in the area since 2014; the development being properly integrated into the local area infrastructure; the emerging local and retail plans and the transport strategy for the JCS, including the multi-storey carpark proposal for the Park and Ride. The “retail and child-care” elements required for a modern business park are already available within less than 5 minutes’ walk of the site. The site is deliverable for B1 and will form as useful fall back site if West Cheltenham Cyber Park suffers any delays, where grant monies may then be threatened. The site simply needs promoting by the developer and for them to commence construction of the B1 offices. The site remains within the greenbelt until at least the date when the JCS is adopted, albeit that the wording as to when is ambiguous in the JCS document. It is also designated B class employment land in the local plan. It is more deliverable than many of the other employment sites within the Cheltenham area, including West Cheltenham, inasmuch as it already has outline planning permission. It is said that the retail element of the proposal equates to a small amount (approximately 12%). However, initially, only the childcare and retail elements of this proposal are to be built, they will then comprise 23% of the site. If the two small B1 offices are subsequently built to complete Phase 1 but are not occupied, retail will continue to occupy 100% of the site. Combining the retail, childcare and BMW developments and assuming that the all of the offices shown on this application are ultimately built will mean that approximately 50% of the site will be occupied by non-B1 use until the time that offices in the “outline” phase are constructed and occupied. 6.6 Employment – when originally permissioned, this site was to create 1200 high value B1 jobs over an internal floor area of 22,000m². BMW claimed they would create 100 jobs. They have not. They have simply merged all local dealerships onto the one site and are now redeveloping the former sites with supermarkets and coffee shops. The applicant claims 1018 equivalent jobs will be generated. This is simply not possible. 71 jobs are created in the childcare/retail offerings, over a total 2448m² with an average density of 34.5 m² per job. The balance of the employment must therefore generate 947 jobs in the B1 offices, which occupy a total area of 13,069 m². This equates to a density of 13.8 m² per person. The recognised allowance per person for B1 in planning matters is 18.3 m². This was the figure that was used to project 1200 jobs over the original 22,000m² of B1 offices and for each of the successive applications on this site until this disingenuous application. Using 18.3 m² per employee reduces the number of potential full time B1 jobs to 715, making a total projected employment for the site of 786 jobs, less the jobs lost at Asda, Morrisons, other local shops and childcare providers. This proposal, combined with the BMW construction will mean that over 400 potential full time jobs will have been lost if this proposal is accepted, compared to the initial 1200 job projection made for the available 22,000m². If this proposal is rejected, the extant permission of 16,800 m² would generate a total of 918 equivalent full time jobs (18.3 m²/job) i.e., a further 132 full time jobs would be created on the extant permission. To allow this application is to reduce potential jobs; not create them.
Page 11 of 20
Financial impact
We have attached an extract from the appellant’s retail and planning statements for this application and the current 2018 application. The following refers to Table 5 of the 2018 Retail and Planning Statement headed “Trade Diversion to Aldi”, as it considered to “update” the reports relating to this submission. Table 5 shows the net effect of Aldi will be a loss of £2.87 million to the local Morrisons and £3.45 million to Asda. That represents many local jobs that will be lost due to loss of trade. The table identifies £0.57 million loss to “other”. It is assumed that this means the small local convenience stores which the report does not care to name. In order to generate the predicted £11.47 million residual turnover for Aldi, many local jobs must be lost and a further £4.58 million of new trade from stores outside of The Reddings must be diverted into the area, meaning significantly increased traffic and resultant pollution, contrary to the aims of the NPPF. In contrast, the extant B1 office proposal will not generate any job losses at all and will only generate new jobs. We just cannot see how a reasonable argument of financial benefit to the county and the net creation of new jobs can be advocated. The applicant’s economic analysis identifies the lower paid nature of jobs created in retail and childcare, compared to B1. The lower wages average approximately 50% of the projected wages for the B1 full time jobs, using the applicant’s own economic benefit analysis. Therefore, to permit this application is equivalent to a reduction in potential employment income on the site of over £588,000 per annum. The Cheltenham Borough Council Retail Statement report on the original application identifies that the Aldi store is larger than is required for the site alone. It also identifies that it will probably affect: local supermarkets Asda and Morrisons; the (already-struggling) shops on Coronation Square. Also, it does not consider; the small row of shops on Caernarvon Road/Hatherley Road (3 minutes’ drive from the proposed site); the Springfield Provision store in The Reddings (5 minutes’ walk/2 minutes’ drive away); the Co-op and independent shops at Warden Hill (5 minutes’ drive away); the convenience store and row of shops at Benhall (5 minutes’ drive away); the convenience store on Windermere Road (5 minutes’ drive away); the proximate Home Bargains food and discount store; the fast food/coffee van in the B&Q carpark (2 minutes’ walk away); the Asda café; the existing drive-through KFC; the Harvester pub and restaurant; all of which are within 5 minutes walk away from the site. These are assumed to be the “other” retailers that are forecast to lose a collective £0.57 million to Aldi. To add to the plethora of retail offerings proposed by the appellant is just unnecessary saturation of local retail market and is a cynical attempt to create an out-of-town shopping centre. The officers note, and express concern, about the proposed layout of the Non-B1 usage which will dominate the front of the site. It will also require intense lighting for the car parks/security, and that will have a significant detrimental impact on the nearby residential properties, as will the noise. The buildings could be readily located along the A40 corridor where they would not visually or acoustically intrude to the same extent, and the noise and light pollution will be better mitigated. The officers’ report says that they do not like the proposed layout and recommend permit simply because it was improved from the initial proposals and because Aldi, the nursery and Costa are telling them that they want these prominent front-of-site locations. Who is setting planning policy? None of this site layout, or the style of the architecture or the colour palette accords with the developer’s advocacy that the retail elements are a subservient part of a B1 office development, and are necessary to promote a modern business park. As reported in the national press, if this Costa is approved, it will be the 15th Costa outlet in Cheltenham. That has to be oversaturation of a small borough.
Page 12 of 20
Retail policies that are retained
1392 objections have been made to the latest draft of the Cheltenham Local Plan. It presently seems unlikely that it will be submitted to examination without further adjustment. Notwithstanding, the current draft does not include retail policies. These were retained by the JCS Examination and their update is now postponed pending a forthcoming JCS Retail Review. This retail review must be completed and incorporated into the adopted Local Plan before retail can be contemplated on this site. Similarly, until the Air Quality Management Strategy is finalised, it makes no sense to increase supermarket traffic to this site when the financial report demonstrates that much of the trade will be diverted from “out of area” and will simply attract numerous car trips from Hesters Way, Rowanfield and other districts, which will necessarily use the polluted section of the A40 identified by DEFRA as NO2 “exceedance” on the nearby B4063 (Arle Curt Roundabout) to the A4013 Benhall Roundabout (Census id: 77985). In the context of expanding access to GCHQ and to a cyber park off Telstar Way, plus the JCS- approved urban expansion of “West Cheltenham”, why congest these routes with trips to another Aldi supermarket and a drive-through coffee shop which is proximate to the vital Arle Court roundabout and the Park and Ride? Retained policy RT1 is clear. The proposed site is outside any “shopping centre” in the permissible hierarch. Greenbelt status is still in force. It is a poor fudge to suggest that “any employment” on this ideal office-approved site is acceptable, when the site has the ability to deliver a high ratio of jobs-per-hectare. The location of the site outside any defined “shopping area” is a crucial instance requiring Local Plan guidance. Retail traffic flowing directly off the minor roundabout (eg to B&Q) and traffic off Hatherley Lane (eg to Asda) is viable, but not off Grovefield Way. The road has too vital a function as the South West distributor road to be clogged needlessly and avoidably by very frequent traffic movements, turning in/out and queuing from an especially high footfall supermarket and a drive- through coffee shop. Nursery traffic (staff and parents) will occur at peak hours when Grovefield Way must be able to perform its intended purpose to maximise around-town traffic flow, not become an end point destination. If the appellant cannot find immediate demand for B1 offices we refer him to the recent decision by developers on the nearby site adjoining E2 where permission was obtained for houses in lieu of B1 in 2016 but a new application for B1 offices has just been submitted to CBC due a percentage upturn in B1 interest in the area (18/01180.FUL). The appellant should await the JCS-driven growth to sweep in to fill the extant permissioned B1 offices. The appellant remarks about the well-appointed site in relation to principal bus and transports routes. Bearing in mind that all of the “retail” requirements that he advocates are already proximate to the site within a few minutes’ walk, it does not need further “ancillary” uses to “make it attractive”. When B1 growth returns to the county, it should return here first. Moreover, the recent extensive parking restrictions in West Cheltenham as an “anti-car commuter” policy are likely to drive considerable employment out of central Cheltenham. The appellant says that the site is “demonstrably the most appropriate location for the proposed development” but ignores better located sites for a modest scale supermarket and drive-through coffee shop, eg, at Coronation Square, which awaits regeneration.
Page 13 of 20
It is further claimed that “the proposal will not remotely adversely affect any other policy protected centre in Cheltenham” yet Hardisty-Jones’ “Economic Impact Assessment” is termed in generalities rather than even containing one mention of the defined “shopping centres” nearby in Cheltenham Borough notably Coronation Square, or Up Hatherley (or even the de facto Asda shopping centre, albeit undesignated). We do not see that local policy CP6, EM1, EM2 and policy RT1 regarding the hierarchy of the location of retail developments on out of town sites, nor RT7, provide any means with which to support the application, nor will they support economic growth in accordance with NPPF paragraph 19, contrary to RT7(b). As we have shown, it will actually harm it. The majority of the reports provided by the applicant are dated, and relate to the original December 2016 scheme submitted, not to the August 2017 proposal that is presented at this appeal. There is no coherence to the submission. The application was changed so many times over the period from submission to refusal that it contains many inaccuracies and inconsistencies and no one can now be certain of what is actually proposed, or what may be approved. The sequential test appears to have been failed, inasmuch as the officer says that the North Place site (where a new Morrisons store was to be built) means that the sequential test could not be passed. This does appear to be a circular argument. If it cannot be passed then it must be the case that the appellant’s argument must have failed. We are aware that the majority shareholder and director in Cotswold BMW, and the applicant, Hinton Properties (Grovefield Way) Ltd, and Hinton Properties (Cheltenham) Ltd, is in fact the same person, Peter Michael Harris. At the time of conducting the sequential tests, the Cotswold Motor Group website had already made it clear that the existing dealerships were to be merged into the new development on Grovefield Way. The disused BMW site in Cheltenham was available for the sequential test, and has now received planning permission for demolition and construction of a new Lidl and Starbucks store. The former BMW sites around the area should have been included within the contemplation of the sequential test and would have been a much more suitable alternative site for the retail offerings that are being proposed at Grovefield. The former BMW sites are not referred to in any of the reports. In addition, the Whole Foods store is also now available, as are new units at The Brewery. The submission is grossly out-of-date and cannot be relied upon. The local playgroup is located in the community centre on North Road West, immediately adjacent to the proposed site. The community centre is run on a voluntary basis and is a registered charity. The playgroup have raised objection to the proposed nursery, which they perceive will cause significant harm to their business. The community centre has raised concern that loss of the playgroup will make the current economic model of the community centre non-viable. In short, if the playgroup is lost, the community centre itself may face closure, such is the importance of the financial contribution the playgroup makes to the centre. Objections from these two organisations have been made. Local business Foxcubs nursery, together with a number of childminders have also raised objection, citing significant potential harm to their business from the proposed Happy Days nursery. These concerns are not recorded in the application, nor are they recorded in the officer’s report, but have potential to cause significant harm to the area. Many parents and members of the planning committee have also voiced concern that children in the proposed nursery would be being cared for in the middle of several car parks and would therefore be exposed to fumes from stationary traffic on Grovefield Way and cars using the development, and delivery lorries. Objective monitoring and assessment of current and projected air quality must be an essential requirement if this application is to be approved. It must be completed and actioned, not added as a non-enforced condition to be undertaken after completion, when the harm will have already started to occur.
Page 14 of 20
The officers suggest that the Costa drive-through (restaurant development) would “serve a largely local need” yet many of the objections from the local area (three residents’ associations; The Reddings, Grace Gardens and Benhall) and local residents, the 850 signature petition from across the area, Hatherley Parish Council, the local councillors, the MP and local businesses have all made it clear that there is no “local need” for Costa, supermarket or childcare provision. Given that tea point and rest facilities are now an inherent requirement in all new office development, staff of the B1 offices will themselves be able to make their own hot drinks. It is inconceivable that workers would regularly leave the office to visit the Costa. It is also inconceivable that local residents would leave their homes and drive to a Costa. Where is there any “local need”? The developer’s claim that they have consulted based on the previous comments. However, we as The Reddings Residents’ Association have not heard from them and we are not aware that they have consulted any local residents, councillors or others. In a time when the environmental impact of single-use cups and single use plastics is being heavily criticised, it seems irresponsible to be promoting their use by allowing a drive-through coffee shop. Such cups are regularly thrown onto verges and streets, and are a major source of litter. There are moves in the USA to ban drive-through coffee shops, because they encourage drivers and passengers to hold scalding hot beverages whilst in motion. As recently reported in the media, The National Police Chiefs Council advise of the little-known legal quirk that could leave drivers with a hefty fine. Despite the offence technically being classified as illegal “there is no specific law against eating and drinking at the wheel, but officers may still prosecute drivers if their behaviour impacts their ability to control the vehicle”. How long before this law is revised and the Costa Drive through model is void? Development of the site in accordance with the extant outline planning permission will create local B1 jobs which could, in turn, benefit local residents by reducing the need to commute by car and consequently facilitating NPPF modal shift. This is because people would be able to walk, cycle or use the bus to travel to work instead of driving. Paragraph 6.4 Design and layout – Policy CP6 states that development will only be permitted where there is a high standard of architectural design. None of the relevant consultees have supported the architectural design or urban design and none of the residents, or other consultees have either. The latest set of drawings, were submitted in November 2017 and were not subject to any consultation at all. The 2007 permission was for a low key development sympathetic to the greenbelt with “glimpses” through enhanced landscaping. This proposal is diametrically opposed to that. Paragraph 6.57 – It is stated that “officers now consider that the most serious shortcomings in the layout have been overcome”. Is this really a good enough level of acceptance enough? It does not suggest that local planning policy CP7 has been met to the satisfaction of the officers, nor to the objectors, nor to the consultees. It implies that Permit was recommended just because some of the worst bits of the original proposal had been adjusted. This is a prestigious site on the gateway to Cheltenham. It is worthy of a development which reflects the aspirations of the Borough, and enhances rather than detracts from the local area. Paragraph 6.5.12 - The officer compares the height of the proposed building with the existing grossly-oversized, overbearing, featureless, monolithic brutal and inappropriately-scaled BMW building, in order to justify the increase from the two storey development that was granted permission in 2007 to the three storey development which is now being proposed. In 2007 appeal, the officers asked for a condition that no building should exceed 7m in height. However, the planning officer’s report states that the proposed retail buildings now range up to 9.1m in height, and the office buildings are to be 13m in height. Why does the officer now consider that a limit of 7m in height is not necessary?
Page 15 of 20
Paragraph 6.6 – impact on neighbouring properties: Since BMW opened in September 2017, the officer’s conclusions just do not match the objections submitted by the residents who live close to the site. This is not a theoretical situation to be set out in reports. The BMW development is causing recorded harm already. Many residents now complain of excessive intrusion of light from the BMW development, particularly in winter when the trees are bare along Grovefield Way whilst the significant increase in traffic since BMW opened in August has led to a significant build-up of pollution due to queueing traffic along Grovefield Way and Hatherley Lane. Delays of between 10-20 minutes are a daily occurrence between 07:30 and 08:45 and from 15:30 to 18:30 hours, Monday to Friday when travelling from North Road West to the Arle Court roundabout. This can be easily verified on google maps using the directions tab which highlights live local traffic area congestion. Adding weekend trading on this site will make an already untenable position even worse, and will threaten traffic flows on the Arle Court roundabout. If the applicant’s calculations regarding the noise generated by the development are further extrapolated, they will prove that the noise in the neighbourhood would in fact be reduced whilst a delivery is being made to one of the retail outlets. The facts are not being impartially presented. The calculation does not account for the additional background noise of vehicles using the road and car parks outside rush hour when Grovefield Way is not so heavily trafficked at present. Nor the 102db sounds of delivery trucks reversing at any hour of the day (100db is equivalent to a jet engine at 300 metres). Traffic to the proposed development will be using it 17.5 hours per day, every day, whereas currently, weekend and evening/night traffic is much quieter; something that would be largely maintained by a B1 development. The additional background traffic noise from queueing cars entering and leaving the site onto an already congested Grovefield Way is also unaccounted for. It is disingenuous for the applicant to suggest that this volume of vehicles over a 17.5 hour period per day, every day will have only a minimal effect. A B1 development will have a pronounced effect on traffic, but it will result in less vehicle movements as it will be concentrated into a general 10 hour per day period, and for only 5 days of the week. Evening and weekend traffic flows will be largely unchanged. The retail and childcare offerings require high levels of car park lighting for safety and security because of the very long business hours and “cash” element that is not present on a B1 park. This will have a further significant detrimental impact on the area and its wildlife. This has already been borne out since BMW have switched their lights on. Sunlight will also reflect off the glazing and gloss white render, causing additional nuisance and possible traffic hazard due to glare. No existing local retail offering in the area is permitted to operate Monday to Sunday, 05:30 to 23:00 hours that this application seeks. It is completely contrary to the permissions previously granted. It is unnecessary and is anti-social in an already established residential area. What will the officers do if other local businesses such as Asda apply for extended hours to balance up the competition if a precedent is set by this application? When Asda was developed, extensive acoustic and light screening was required by the officers to mitigate the impact upon the nearby residents. Why is this development being treated differently? The extant permission for B1 offices would be for a Monday to Friday use, not Saturday and Sunday. There would be a significant increase in traffic fumes and noise over the weekend if the supermarket and coffee shop are granted permission compared to the extant B1 permission at a time when residents and children will be on the roads walking and cycling, and playing in their gardens.
Page 16 of 20
The officers acknowledge that the B1 office element of the application would have a “quiet nature of use”. This is in stark contrast with the retail and childcare element, which would have a very significant detrimental effect upon the local area. This is why these elements are being opposed, especially as they are already in abundant supply within a few minutes’ walk of the site. TRRA support the building of outline offices to maintain the “quiet nature of use” which the officer sets out. Residents have indicated that they are concerned that concessions to retail would encourage anti- social behaviour into this quiet neighbourhood, until late into the night, 7 days per week. We note that the open terrace of Costa is being promoted as a social venue through to 23:00 hours at night. The Aldi store will also provide a further “off-licence” with the danger that it will promote anti- social behaviour and litter.
6.7 – Access and highways issues
The officers acknowledge the high traffic volumes and queues and delays. These have become acute following the opening of BMW in August 2017. Right turns into the development are catered for by a short central refuge. Right turns out of the development are not catered for at all on this 40mph speed limit road. With B1, much of the intense traffic would be arriving and departing at broadly similar times, with much lighter traffic for the rest of the day. The retail traffic model is entirely different. Again, business traffic is likely to be only significant Monday to Friday. Retail traffic would be an issue seven days per week, 17.5 hours per day, 365 days of the year. Also, please refer to our comments entitled “Retail policies that are retained” on pages 13 and 14 where these relate to access and highways issues. BMW have not enforced the travel plan that they submitted as part of their application. Consequently, many employees are travelling to work by car and are resorting to renting 80 spaces in the adjoining Park and Ride (along with other local employees), or are parking on local roads where the police have frequently needed to be called since August 2017 because cars are parked illegally and causing an obstruction. The traffic into and out of the Park and Ride associated with the opening times for local businesses is causing very significant overcapacity problems on the B&Q roundabout and, in turn, is adding to the traffic delays on Hatherley Lane and Grovefield Way. The appellant provides no detail of how the car parking will be managed to ensure that shoppers and BMW staff do not use the B1 car parks and vice versa. The Gloucester Highways’ analysis that the traffic associated with the retail will only be slightly different from that associated with the B1 development is entirely contrary to the evidence that they offered to the JCS in respect of the Fiddington site, where the developer wished to change B1 use to retail. That application was refused. The baseline traffic survey between 6 and 12 July 2016 was undertaken during a non-neutral month as defined by the Department of Transport and as such, cannot be considered to be representative. Further, the survey was undertaken before BMW opened in August 2017, so no account is taken of the significant increase in traffic problems that it has produced. Further local development has been granted permission since that time, including an 80 bedroom care home opposite Asda. The JCS will be encouraging parking at the Park and Ride for the West Cheltenham development, and requires the Park and Ride to double in capacity. The site owners have positioned the BMW
Page 17 of 20
building in such a way that horizontal expansion of the park and ride (as conditioned in 2007) is now impossible. A multi storey car park is proposed in the JCS. However, during its construction, local parking problems will be exacerbated, because businesses that currently park there, will no longer be able to do so, for a significant period of time. Upon completion, there will then also be a considerably higher volume of traffic into and out of the site. GCC Strategic Planning Team advise that their traffic data for the area was only updated to 2013 and has a shelf life of only 6-7 years. These traffic matters have not yet been fully developed locally and the traffic evidence in the JCS is not developed sufficiently to introduce another unknown with a change of use on this site without a detailed study and mitigation design. It will be prejudicial to the health and wellbeing of the local neighbourhood, if a detailed, bespoke survey and study is not carried by an impartial authority. The GCC team have confirmed to us that Grovefield Way has not been modelled on a localised basis in their traffic evidence to the JCS. Instead, the “area rule” was applied, and all traffic movements are averaged over a significant geographical area. Consequently, GCC admit that the distribution of traffic over The Reddings area could in fact be wildly different, and their strategic model probably does not reflect reality. The existing data cannot be used as a reliable source. An updated, reliable traffic survey and objective analysis is vital in view of the significant congestion and associated problems that are a daily occurrence around this site at peak weekday times. To exacerbate the problem by introducing late evening and weekend retail traffic to this site would not be appropriate without a proper study, careful design and an enforceable travel plan. Some of the delivery vehicle (which include 36 tonne lorries) tracking routes around the site seem dangerous and likely to cause conflict between pedestrians, customer cars, staff, customers, etc. This is particularly undesirable on a development where a nursery would be located. Many residents are now complaining of regular intrusive fume smells which stop them being able to open their windows on warm days or to enjoy their gardens. The problem is particularly concentrated along Hatherley Lane close to Grace Gardens, and on the roundabout at the junction of The Reddings and Grovefield Way down to the Park and Ride. The retail proposal is encouraging cars into the area, particularly for “drive-through” purposes, which is contrary to the principles of the NPPF. A detailed air monitoring assessment and mitigation policy prior to the start of any further development is required, but the Council have presently refused to action one. In the middle of this pollution, the applicant proposes to include a pre-school nursery.
6.9 Trees and landscaping
Indigenous species would be an improvement. Details of the height of trees and shrubs at the time of planting and the number of years to achieve what is shown on the drawings is required.
6.10 Wildlife and ecology
We are unable to detect concessions to wildlife habitats such as bird, bat and mammal boxes which may go some way to provide reparation for the harm to wildlife that will be caused by this application. We attach a copy of a more comprehensive analysis of wildlife and fauna on and around this site to supplement the paltry evidence submitted to the LPA using their criteria. Much of the data in our report originates from records held by GNER. We do not therefore understand why their submission to the LPA should be so minimal.
Page 18 of 20
Summary
To be clear, TRRA do not take issue with the B1 elements of the application or the extant permission as a fall-back. TRRA and the vast majority of the 1000 households that it represents, the ward councillors, neighbouring residents’ associations, businesses and parish council object to the non-B class application. As detailed, we find a multitude of reasons why the application conflicts with policies, namely Retail, Local, Greenbelt and the NPPF. The reports submitted are now significantly out-of-date and use flawed data many relate to drawings and proposals that have subsequently been superseded. The application is confusing and is not transparent as to its intentions for the B1 development elements in particular. The Local Plan is not yet finalised and the Retail Plan is not written. This application is not consistent with either. This proposal is contrary to the current retained retail plan. The reports submitted by the appellant were drafted before the current editions of the Local Plan and JCS. The officer does not report on the objection reports filed by other traffic and planning consultants. These refute many of the applicant’s reports, conclusions and claims. The traffic data is grossly out-of-date and the more recent survey is unreliable. This proposal is very different to a B1-only proposal inasmuch as offices are likely to be operating at capacity 5 days per week, 08:00 to 18:00 hours with predictable traffic flows at finite periods. Retail will be 7 days per week, 05:30 to 23:00 hours with 24 hours per day intense lighting and very variable traffic flows all day and every day. Also, further light pollution from vehicle headlights shining into windows at all hours would occur. Traffic was bad before and is now very bad following the BMW being opened in August 2017. Traffic fumes are very noticeable due to the standing traffic and yet it is proposed to build a pre- school nursery in the middle of it. What of the health risks to the children, residents and drivers who are now in stationary traffic? How is this being assessed? The applicant fails to do so in the documents submitted. This was a significant concern for the planning committee Acoustic background noise from stationary traffic and deliveries and vehicle movements around the site will increase significantly compared to the extant B1 permission. The problem is compounded by the same applicant as the appellant previously felling much of the tree and vegetation screening along the A40 and Grovefield Way to display their BMW building. B1 is likely to create modal shift with local jobs for local residents. Conversely, retail will encourage journeys from out-of-town so it is contrary to the NPPF. The applicant’s projected full time B Class job numbers are misleading and use incorrect numbers. The very special circumstances in 2007 were to permit the use of premier greenbelt land for employment purposes with the creation of high value B1 jobs on a large site. The BMW development has removed over 33% of the original site area available and created few, if any, new full time jobs. This proposal will take a further 12% of the site for non-B Class development to create 71 associated new full time jobs. However, that will be at a cost of 132, or more B1 jobs that would be created on the same 2448sq meters of the site. The loss of B1 jobs to the retail/childcare A and D class proposal will remove a potential £588,000 per annum from the local economy compared to the equivalent on B1 employment wages that would be generated by the extant B1 permission. Page 19 of 20
Altering the site contours and stockpiling of soil during the BMW development has altered the historic ability of the site to absorb storm. This is causing flooding to local houses. The proposed development must account for this water in their designs. A local spring has also changed course and is causing continuous damage to the adjoining highway “North Road West”. The SSSI is nearby and any further changes to ground water flows or conditions may prejudice the SSSI. The piecemeal nature of the submission and revision of drawings, reports and the like mean that there can be no confidence that the proposals which the appellant presents are transparent or coherent, and that the applicant will not subsequently reapply to adjust the proposals once he has secured permission for A and D class development on the site, as he did for BMW. The proposal is not appropriate development in the greenbelt. The development does not pass the sequential test because The Reddings area is not recognised in the policies retained in the Local Plan. There is no mention the former BMW site on Tewkesbury Road (which now has permission for a Lidl & Starbucks). The Whole Foods site is also now vacant and units are vacant at the Brewery. Paragraph 27 of the NPPF clearly states that if the test is failed, permission should be refused. The officer remarks that the test could not be passed. If permitted, this will be the 15th Costa Coffee in Cheltenham. In this regard, the county is already a laughing stock. Costa will also encourage consumption of hot drinks whilst driving. The draft unilateral undertaking by the developer does not offer adequate security that the whole site will not become a retail park by stealth. Whilst the refusal did not exclude retail, the substance of the debate and reason for it not being included was that a small newsagent/convenience type shop to serve the needs of the office park may be appropriate. This must not be twisted to infer that an “upfront and centre” supermarket that is larger than the needs of the site was accepted in principle by the planning committee. There are so many flaws in this application that we are surprised that it has been brought forward for your consideration with a recommendation to permit, simply because some of the worst aspects of the initial application in December 2016 have been adjusted over the past 12 months. We believe that our community, and Cheltenham, deserves the right solution in line with the visions of the emerging local plan. Precious greenbelt has been sacrificed for this B class employment land site. For that to have happened just to make way for more coffee shops and supermarkets would be wrong and we find nothing to support the applicants advocacy for same in the facts of this matter. We urge you to reject this application and thank you for your time and consideration of our argument.
Signed Gary Fulford Chairperson The Reddings Residents’ Association
Page 20 of 20