Agenda and minutes

Application  14/01063/OUT – Land at Winneycroft Farm.

Councillors Williams and Toleman declared personal non-prejudicial interests as Board Members of Gloucester City Homes.

Councillor Smith declared a prejudicial interest as she lived near the site and could be affected by the impact of increased traffic.

Application 15/01142./FUL – Gloucester Bus Station

Councillor Etheridge declared a prejudicial interest by virtue of his employment.

Please note that any late material relating to the applications below will be published on the Council’s website as a supplement in the late afternoon of the day of the meeting.

Members’ attention was drawn to the late material in respect of agenda items 4 and 5 which had been published on the Council’s website as a supplement to the agenda.

Due to the quantity of such information the Chair allowed sufficient time for Members to read the information.

Application for determination

Contact: Development Control – tel: (01452) 396783

Councillors Williams and Toleman had declared personal non-prejudicial interests as Board Members of Gloucester City Homes.

Councillor Smith declared a prejudicial interest as she lived near the site and could be affected by the impact of increased traffic. She left the meeting during consideration of this item.

The Principal Planning Officer presented her report which detailed an outline application for the erection of up to 420 dwellings and community space/building as well as associated landscaping, public open space, access, drainage, infrastructure, earthworks and other ancillary enabling works on land at Winnycroft Lane, Matson.

She advised that it had been intended to send the late material on Monday but this had not been possible due to e-mail problems. She noted that the highways comments had been omitted from the committee report in error and advised that the reference to English heritage on Page 36 of the late material should read that English Heritage had no objection to the application.

She drew Members’ attention to the revised recommendation contained within the late material.

Councillor Haigh, ward Member for Matson and Robinswood, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Councillor Haigh welcomed the application and stated that the developer had undertaken considerable consultation in the community. She advised that local residents understood the need for high quality housing and were keen that this development should become part of their community.

She hoped that the community would benefit from the S.106 contributions in particular Matson library and improvements to bus services. Traffic on Winnycroft Lane was a serious concern and she hoped that there would be serious mitigation at the junction with Painswick Road.

She believed that the sports pitches had not been included at the request of the local community who would have preferred for the monies to be spent on existing sports facilities within the ward.

She expressed disappointment at the proposed amount of affordable housing but supported the proposed reviews and asked Members to consider the provision of fifteen per cent affordable housing to be the absolute minimum acceptable on this site.

Keith Fenwick for the applicant addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Mr Fenwick stated that the application was the result of fourteen months of detailed negotiations with Council Officers who had ensured the robustness of the scheme.

Barwood had been involved with the local community since the summer of 2013 and had produced a proposal that would produce 100 jobs, £4.9 million local spend and £3.43 million for local services.

Consultants engaged by the applicant had concluded that the scheme would only be viable with zero provision of affordable housing and Barwood had offered ten per cent on or off site

Mr Fenwick noted that the Council’s consultant had suggested fifteen per cent but he believed that this figure was not supported by the same level of evidence as the applicant’s figures.

He suggested that in order to prevent the joint working going to waste, should no agreement be reached before the end of January,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

Application for determination

Contact: Development Control – tel: (01452) 396783

Councillor Etheridge had declared a prejudicial interest by virtue of his employment.

The Development Control Manager presented his report which detailed an application for the demolition of buildings, tree removal and redevelopment of site to provide a new bus station, highways and access works, landscaping and associated infrastructure works including the provision of emergency staircase on existing NCP car park at Gloucester Bus Station, Market Parade.

He referred Members to the late material which contained comments from Environmental Planning regarding bats; a revised recommendation and suggested conditions.

He reported an additional representation from Bus Users UK and Rail Future which requested the following, some of which were already addressed:-

·         Real time information on trains in the bus station and on buses in the railway station

·         Clearly marked walking route between the two

·         Café and waiting rooms

·         Electronic information screens

·         Closed circuit television

·         Travel Centre

·         Consultation with  British Transport Police

·         Litter bins

·         Seating

·         Provision for National Express and Megabus

·         Taxi rank

·         Left luggage facility

·         Car parking

Anthony Hodge, Head of Regeneration and Economic Development, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Mr Hodge advised Members that the application presented a once in a generation opportunity. The exiting bus station was not fit for purpose, dated, unattractive and acted as a magnet for anti-social behaviour.

The proposal was the result of public consultation and was intended to raise the standards of modern building design in the City. It was designed to be seagull proof and for ease of maintenance which was a key factor.

It would provide state of the art facilities for travellers including a café and ‘pay to use’, safe, well designed public toilets. It had been developed in partnership with Stagecoach who would operate the facility and had received £6.4 million of grant funding from Gloucestershire First LEP, and the Gloucestershire Local Transport Board.

He advised the Committee that there was a critical path to be followed to secure the funding for the project.

Councillor Lewis questioned the new road junction and Jamie Mattock, Gloucestershire Highways officer, advised that it would be tied in with the railway station. Each junction had been modelled separately and together to achieve betterment. 

Councillor Chatterton noted that a sequence of sets of traffic lights close together was proposed and he noted that the similar arrangement on the A38 failed regularly.

Ms Mattock advised that the scheme was redistributing existing traffic rather than generating traffic.

Councillor McLellan believed a greater number of passengers travelled on bus services which did not use the bus station. He was advised that existing arrangements would not be changed.

Ms Mattock confirmed that access would be maintained for all businesses and residents.

Councillor Hobbs believed the design to be bland and failed to project the aspirations of the City. He noted that people using the present pedestrian crossing tended to walk out into the traffic. He was advised that this had been recognised and addressed in the design of the replacement.

Councillor Williams requested that alternative  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

Tuesday, 12 January 2016 at 6.00pm.

Tuesday, 12 January 2016 at 6.00 pm.

The Chair wished all present a Merry Christmas.