Agenda item

Application for determination:-

 

Outline planning application (with all matters reserved except for access) for the erection of a new 10,000sqm business school, the provision of new student accommodation (up to 200 beds) and the creation of additional car parking at the University of Gloucestershire Oxstalls Campus, Oxstalls Lane and the Debenhams Playing Field, Estcourt Road. Provision of new and improved sports facilities at Oxstalls Sports Park, Debenhams Playing Field, Oxstalls Campus and Plock Court Playing Fields, including on land  currently occupied by the Former Bishops College,  to include – the provision of new multiuse sports hall, 2 x 3G all weather sports pitches with associated 500 seat spectator stand, floodlighting, replacement cricket pavilion and additional parking; improved vehicular access at Oxstalls Lane, Plock Court and Estcourt Road, new vehicular access at Estcourt Close, improved pedestrian and cycling connections and associated highways, landscaping and ancillary works.

 

Councillor Williams, having declared a non-prejudicial interest in this application, withdrew to the public gallery during the consideration of this item.

 

Councillor Lewis having declared a personal interest remained in the meeting and participated in the consideration of the application.

 

The Principal Planning Officer presented his report which detailed an outline planning application (with all matters reserved except for access) for the erection of a new 10,000 sqm business school, the provision of new student accommodation (up to 200 beds) and the creation of additional; car parking at the University of Gloucestershire Oxstalls Campus, Oxstalls Lane and the Debenhams Playing Field, Oxstalls Campus and Plock Court Playing Fields including on land currently occupied by the former Bishops College to include – the provision of new multi-use sports hall, 2x 3G all weather sports pitches with associated 500 seat spectator stand, floodlighting, replacement cricket pavilion and additional parking; improved vehicular access at Oxstalls Lane, Plock Court and Estcourt Road, new vehicular access at Estcourt Close, improved pedestrian and cycling connections and associated highways, landscaping and ancillary works.

 

He drew Members’ attention to the late material which contained a clarification of paragraph 6.99 of the report by the University and an amended recommendation.

 

Councillor Porter as a Ward Member was invited to address the Committee.

 

Councillor Porter stated that he had been excited by the original proposals and the potential financial benefits that they would bring to the City. His excitement had waned as the proposals were developed and the extent of the potential impact on the community became apparent.

 

Many hours had been spent in trying to find ways to mitigate these impacts but the University remained intransigent. Originally free parking had been proposed for residents, which then became an offer by the University to support free parking for a limited time and now the offer had been withdrawn completely.

 

He stated that residents considered on-street parking to be a nightmare at the present time with both staff and students trying to avoid paying parking charges.

 

A new on-site car park was proposed but the access would cross a busy sustainable transport route where he had personally sustained injuries from an accident.

 

He believed that the proposed access arrangements were too complex and would cause delays to other road users.

 

He stated that the proposed student accommodation blocks were too close to houses on Estcourt Road and would be better sited behind the business school or moved to the east. He stated that the University had refused both suggestions.

 

The access off Tewkesbury Road had not been designed for the volumes of traffic proposed and he had suggested an alternative.

 

He noted that more than 200 representations had been received and the majority wished the development to go ahead but with appropriate mitigation measures and the proposals put forward by the local community would be both better and cheaper.

 

John Bond of Estcourt Close addressed the Committee in opposition to the application on behalf of Oxvoice and Estcourt residents.

 

Mr Bond believed that consultation had been inadequate and there had been no opportunity for discussions with local residents. The Stakeholder Group had only met on one occasion. Many local people were still unaware of the potential impacts of the proposals and the situation may have been different if the matter had not been handled with such haste and consideration had been given to alternatives that had been put forward.

 

He believed that the application should be deferred to await the anticipated application for Bishop’s College.

 

There were eight new proposals in the amended scheme and there had been no explanations provided or any supporting information provided.

 

He believed that an access off Estcourt Close could be avoided and suggested a new access via Estcourt Road which could be achieved between the roundabout and the last house on Estcourt Road.

 

He noted that the Debenham’s Field was designated for sports use only in the local plan and he noted that there had always been a cricket pitch on Plock Court so it would not mitigate the loss on Debenham’s Field.

 

He considered that the design and position of the student halls would adversely affect residents.

 

He questioned the use of Estcourt Close as an access as it had previously been required only to provide access to the relocated allotments in the original plans for the application.

 

He noted that there had been no mention of the interests of local people in the proposed conditions.

 

He noted that Debenham’s Field was the subject of a restrictive covenant which would require to be resolved by the Land Tribunal before development could start.

 

Stephen Marston, Vice-Chancellor of the University, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Mr Marston stated that the proposal would bring benefits to the City and was important for the future success of the University. The application would enable the business school to be relocated from Cheltenham and would provide better sports facilities. It was important to the future of the University and also to the City and the County.

 

The proposal would support jobs in the City and the students had spending power of over £2 million. They would also want to find jobs within the county.

 

The Growth Hub provided a wide range of services to business and the proposed enhanced sports facilities would be dual use and the University was working with the Aspire Trust to that end.

 

Mr Marston stated that the University wished to maintain relationships with the local community and he did not believe that the University had been intransigent.

 

The allotments would not be relocated and the University had not withdrawn from a possible Controlled Parking Zone. The Local Enterprise Partnership had invested £5 million in the project.

 

In conclusion he noted that sixty six conditions were proposed to ensure the development was well managed and potential adverse impacts were mitigated.

 

The Chair questioned the provision of parking and the County Council Highways Officer advised that the University had undertaken extensive surveys in June and October and further surveys would be required by condition within three months of occupation.

 

She made reference to government guidance in paragraph 39 of the National Planning Policy Framework and advised that there was no evidence that on-street parking was causing a road safety issue.

 

The Vice Chair stated that he had witnessed parking issues on Oxstalls Way  and he believed that more work should be undertaken on parking as the development should not be at the expense of local residents.

 

The Highways Officer noted that a number of adjacent streets were congested and the University had indicated a willingness to work with the Highway Authority. There were a number of possible solutions including the possibility of a Controlled Parking Zone.

 

Councillor Hilton believed that it was County Council policy to consider Controlled Parking Zones only in areas where more than half the homes did not have off-street parking.

 

Councillor McLellan referred to the parking survey requested within three months of occupation and noted that it could take a long time to put a Traffic Regulation Order into place.

 

The Vice Chair referred to the restriction on first year students having cars on site and asked how many sanctions had been taken. The Principal Planning Officer advised that in the period from September to February at the Oxstalls campus, fifteen Warning One and four Warning Two notices had been issued and no evictions had been considered to be necessary.

 

The Chair raised the following issues:-

 

Cheltenham Road traffic lights – the Highways Officer confirmed that the proposals were completely acceptable. The Vice Chair noted a number of accidents had been caused by drivers failing to cancel their direction indicators, and the junction proposals were a big benefit of the scheme.

 

Estcourt Close access to student accommodation – the Highway Authority was not supportive of intensifying use of the existing allotment access and there would be very little trip generation from student accommodation using the Estcourt Close access.

 

Consultation on amended proposals – The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that interested parties had been re-notified of the amendments and a further period allowed for representations.

 

Loss of cricket pitch – The Principal Planning Officer advised that he taken this matter up with Sport England who supported the proposals ‘in the round’ and the Gloucestershire Cricket Board had taken the same view. The Vice Chair believed that it would take years to restore the pitch at Debenham’s Field to playable standard.

 

Plock Court access – the Highways Officer indicated that the capacity analysis was acceptable.

 

The Vice Chair expressed concern at the proximity of the proposed access road to the Tennis Centre.

 

Councillor McLellan agreed with the Vice Chair and asked if the 500 seat stand had been taken into account. He was advised that the impact would be less outside peak hours and the Highways Officer had recommended an Event Management Plan to manage larger events.

 

The Solicitor advised Members that the existence of restrictive covenants must not be taken into account in the determination of planning applications. With regard to the suggestion that the application be deferred to await an application for Bishop’s College, he reminded Members to consider the application before them and stated that it would not be reasonable to defer the application to await an application on adjoining land.

 

Councillor Hilton believed that the application was an improvement on the super store previously proposed for the site. He was pleased that the University had listened to concerns about relocating the allotments.

He noted that the proposed 200 bed student accommodation was intended for first year students and the University would be looking in the City for accommodation for second and third year students. He called for such accommodation to be purpose built to avoid taking up badly needed family accommodation in the City.

 

The Chair noted that the planning process had ensured that statutory consultation had been undertaken on this application and he hoped that the University would undertake consultation on the reserved matters application.

 

The Solicitor advised that, due to legal reasons, paragraph 6.184 of the report should include reference to Section 1, The Localism Act 2011.

 

RESOLVED that  subject to the completion of a planning obligation to secure the community liaison group, on site student management team and taxi management (and also delegate to the Development Control Manager in consultation with the Planning Solicitor) the incorporation of such additional provisions in the proposed planning obligation that may be deemed necessary by the Solicitor), outline planning permission be granted subject to the conditions in the Committee report with the following amendments:-

 

Amended Condition 48

Prior to occupation of the proposed student accommodation details of the access from Estcourt Close to the student accommodation including measures to limit vehicular access so as to provide only for permitted users, and measures to restrict vehicular access from the existing access serving the Estcourt Park allotments to the north of Estcourt Road, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and completed in all respects.

 

Reason

To ensure safe and suitable access to serve the proposed development and to minimise conflict between traffic, pedestrians and cyclists in accordance with Paragraph 32 and 35 of the NPPF.

 

Amended Condition 65

Prior to occupation of the business school, the student accommodation, or the sports hall, a Travel Plan for that use shall be submitted in accordance with the approved Travel Plan Framework  and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, setting out;

 

i. objectives and targets for promoting sustainable travel,

ii. appointment and funding of a travel plan coordinator,

iii. details of an annual monitoring and review process,

iv. means of funding of the travel plan, and;

v. an implementation timetable including the responsible body for each action.

 

The approved Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the details and timetable therein, and shall be continued thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason

To ensure that the opportunities for sustainable transport modes are taken up in accordance with paragraphs 32 and 36 of the National Planning Policy Framework.