APPENDIX 4 Golden Valley Development Draft Supplementary Planning Document: Schedule of comments received and identified changes This consultation response report includes a summary of all responses received together with the changes made to the Golden Valley Development Supplementary Planning Document. There are 2 tables; Table 1 provides the comments received from all statutory and non-statutory consultees, interest groups, developers and members of the public who submitted comments via email/letter/via Common Place consultation platform Table 2 provides the general comments received via the Common Place consultation platform. All comments received were reviewed by an officer team representing both Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Councils together with the consultancy technical team. Where appropriate, changes have been made to the Supplementary Planning Document as noted in this report. Please note, to comply with GDPR all personal details have been removed. Where a comment has been provided by an organisation or agent, the name of this organisation is listed. Table 1 Comment Consultee/ Key Theme Comments Summary of Comment Proposed Change Page/ SPD Number Individual Figure Ref changed 1 GCC Smart Cities The reference to smart healthcare in the Smart City principles (page 19) is Supportive of smart cities narrative Add additional reference to smart cities in P38 yes welcomed and we would encourage the local authorities and developer(s) to relation to food production within C8 engage proactively with local NHS commissioners and providers to understand opportunities to deliver this in alignment with the local strategy. There may also be an opportunity to consider how the Smart City principles could apply to the production and supply of nutritious food that has a lower impact on the planet 2 GCC Wellbeing The last bullet point on page 28 is an incomplete sentence – we would Would like to see more on social Review bullet point p 28 P28 yes support the provision of social infrastructure to promote social and mental infrastructure wellbeing but would want to see this point expanded/completed to give examples, e.g. drawn from the Barnwood Trust’s Social Sustainability Toolkit 3 GCC Space Could the SPD make reference to internal space standards, alongside push for Would like to see internal space Too detailed for SPD and straying into policy N/A n/a Standards higher density development in section 7.2? – the space within a home can standards included formulation, but valid point to pass to JCS team impact on physical and mental wellbeing in a range of ways, including for consideration in JCS review or a specific overcrowding, inability to store and prepare fresh food, space to study, etc. space standard SPD 4 GCC Food Strategy We strongly support the requirement for a food strategy on pages 30 and 38 Supportive of food strategy Add reference to Gloucestershire Food Strategy C8 yes and would recommend alignment with the developing Gloucestershire Food under C8 Strategy and its ambitions for the county. We think the SPD could include some further wording to increase its aspirations, encompassing the production of food, residential and commercial supply chain and nutrition. The Sustainable Food City principles could be a helpful reference point - http://sustainablefoodcities.org/keyissues.html 5 GCC Validation JCS Policy SD14 requires a health impact assessment for strategic allocations – Add detail to validation check list Add health impact assessment to validation P82 yes Check List should this be included in the validation checklist on page 82? The Public check list p82 Health team has already engaged with the JCS team to provide support and guidance around this. APPENDX 5 Golden Valley Development Draft Supplementary Planning Document: Schedule of comments received and identified changes 1 Comment Consultee/ Key Theme Comments Summary of Comment Proposed Change Page/ SPD Number Individual Figure Ref changed 6 GCC Health General There is a dense network of bus routes running through this area linking Supportive of improved bus services Detailed comments provided by bus operators N/A n/a Comment- Cheltenham with both Gloucester and Tewkesbury, many at relatively high and being reviewed together with guidance Congestion frequency. In addition to our service 94 and 97-98 corridors between from Local Highways Authority. No change to Cheltenham and Churchdown continuing to Gloucester we should mention the SPD, but important factor for development the 94X/94U and Pulhams service 99 using the A40 to run direct between management stage. Cheltenham and Gloucester. To this must be added local routes operating within the town, of which the most directly relevant is service 93 which is the Arle Court Park and Ride service; and the two main services operating in the Hesters Way/PE Way area: service A and C. The Draft SPD helpfully maps these services. The density of the network reflects the strategic location astride the main travel demands arising between the largest two towns in the County. All these routes are seriously affected by congestion-related delay and unreliability, despite bus priority measures in existence between Arle Court and Cheltenham town centre along the A40. Some improvements to the westbound bus priority were delivered in 2018. However, the measures in place are intermittent and partly as a result of this these difficulties continue to worsen. 7 Stagecoach Concern- Apart from the terminal loop of town Service C that runs alongside the Supportive of improved bus services See comment 6. Relevant comments for N/A n/a Extension to eastern edge of the allocation at Fiddlers Green on Springbank Road, and the Development management stage. existing bus terminal loop of town service H at Pilgrove Way offered about every 30 routes minutes via a rather more circuitous route into town, the allocation lies considerably off-line of the main bus routes, despite the density of the local network. This paradox presents a serious challenge, as simple diversion of existing inter-urban services into an extensive site is not possible without entirely altering the service pattern and making journeys for existing users greatly slower and more circuitous. Extension of routes A, C and H looks superficially easier. 8 Stagecoach Concern- Lack • There are clear measures already “shovel-ready” that can be implemented Concern about congestion and support Noted. Some of these elements are detailed N/A n/a of action on within the Public Highway, westbound on the A40 at Benhall (the Benhall for bus priority points for development management process proposed Westbound Bus Lane) that had been funded through the LEP, but was and/or linked to major West Cheltenham works withdrawn at a very late stage from the capital programme. This links Transport Infrastructure Scheme, that is agreed together existing bus lanes between Lansdown Road and Arle Court, to create and being delivered 2020. near-seamless continuous bus priority. This should be implemented at the earliest opportunity, and before occupation of any employment on the site. • The very substantial traffic generated by the development will unavoidably seriously threaten the delivery of all the existing bus services in the area, and by extension, jeopardise the entire commercial bus network in the Central Severn Vale area, without the implementation of substantial, seamless bus priority allowing the routes to run efficiently and reliably whatever the conditions on the key routes concerned 9 Stagecoach Suggested • Further measures should be taken at Arle Court to enhance bus priority and Improvements to Arle Court Se comment 8 N/A n/a Works allow buses using the A40 Golden Valley Bypass to serve the Park and Ride. These works should include a substantial length of bus priority on the B4063 approach to Arle Court 10 Stagecoach Suggested • The scope apparently exists to harden the verge within the Public Highway Improvements to Princess Elizabeth Noted but outside direct focus of SPD, however N/A n/a Works on Princess Elizabeth Way, to shift the vast majority of current on-carriageway Way relevant point to pull into future detailed parking into dedicated bays, without loss of trees or any detriment to amenity development management discussions. or existing walking or cycling infrastructure, allowing the creation of bus lanes Comments also relevant to Cheltenham West along the entirety of that link in both directions. Regeneration proposals being led by Cheltenham Borough Homes. Comments passed on. APPENDX 5 Golden Valley Development Draft Supplementary Planning Document: Schedule of comments received and identified changes 2 Comment Consultee/ Key Theme Comments Summary of Comment Proposed Change Page/ SPD Number Individual Figure Ref changed 11 Stagecoach Phasing and • The phasing of the development and the completion of internal bus Supportive of phasing of the bus Add reference to phasing of routes D1 D1 yes transport links circulation routes at a suitably early stage, to a standard allowing efficient and circulation routes reliable bus operation, will be essential to deliver a relevant bus service, whether by extension, diversion or creation of new bus routes. 12 Stagecoach Springbank- • The principle of bus-only access at one or more points between Springbank Bus only access at Springbank is Support is noted. No change required to SPD N/A n/a Bus only and the eastern flank of the site is highly advisable to provide efficient bus supported access routes that maximise patronage potential and is unequivocally supported. advisable 13 Stagecoach General • The principle of further filtered permeability for walking and cycling Supportive of pedestrian and cycle links Support is noted. No change required to SPD. N/A n/a Comment- between the existing neighbourhoods to the east and the development is between existing and new Support for essential to maximise the potential to realise wider social and economic as neighbourhoods pedestrian well as transport-related and health benefits, while also further damping links demands to access the site using single-occupancy vehicles.