Cheltenham Plan (Part One): Preferred Options

Preferred Options


List of answers to the specified question
Brockhampton Land Consortium (- -) See attached 22 Mar 2017 13:23
David Wilson Homes (- -) No 16 Mar 2017 17:06
David Wilson Homes (- -) It is essential that the Cheltenham Local Plan makes provision for the delivery of sufficient housing for Cheltenham over the plan period. This should be informed by the strategic policies that are to be set by the JCS, including recognition that any final housing requirement in the JCS may be expressed as a minimum, the specific contribution that housing development can make to local economic growth and economic performance, and the need to meet (to the fullest extent possible) the significant needs for affordable housing that are evident within the Cheltenham area.

In respect of the Housing figures for Cheltenham that are set out at Table 3 of the consultation document it is not clear from either the document itself or supporting evidence base the basis for the further 865 windfalls that are allowed for in the period to 2031. Whilst this information may have been considered as part of the JCS it is necessary to be clear on the basis of which the Cheltenham housing supply will be secured through this plan, including justification in respect of the various sources of supply. It will also be necessary for either agreed or updated delivery during the plan period from strategic sites to be accurately factored into this table, to inform the residual (minimum) level of development for the Plan Period to be identified by the Cheltenham Local Plan from other sources.
Information is provided on urban capacity within the consultation documents and supporting evidence and we would comment on the following sites at this stage:

Reeves Field (S070) – delivery of approximately 80 units is allowed from this site in 6-10 years (i.e. approximately 2023-2027). This is notwithstanding the fact that the site currently comprises sports pitches and it is acknowledged at 6.5.2 that "The potential loss of sport pitches would need to be justified". Reliance on the delivery of 80 units from this site when the loss of the existing sports pitches is not known to be justified is not sound. This element of the urban capacity should be excluded, as in the absence of suitable evidence and justification it would be contrary to NPPF para 74 and relevant policies of Sport England.

Christ College Site B (S064) – as with Reeves Field above, although this site is said to be disused, its previous/last use was a playing fields (pitches) and therefore in accordance with NNPF Para 74 and relevant policies of Sport England specific evidence and justification is required for the loss of this resource. In the absence of this reliance on capacity of around 70 dwellings from this site would be unsound.

Former Mokscroft Primary School (S093) – as with Reeves Field and Christ College Site B above, this sites previous/last use was a playing fields and therefore in accordance with NNPF Para 74 and relevant policies of Sport England specific evidence and justification is required for the loss of this resource. In the absence of this reliance on capacity of around 60 dwellings from this site would be unsound.

Land at Chester Walk Car Park (S088) – the Council's assessment that "competing demands on the site may rule out housing" does not give convincing evidence that the site will come forward and deliver the 14 units that are anticipated by the Urban Capacity Study.

In the absence of further evidence and justification it would not be sound to rely on these (approximately) 224 units from the Council's Urban Capacity Study, and therefore alternative sources of supply would need to be found. It should also be noted that there are other commitments (such as the planning permission for mixed use development on the former Coach Station Site – S110) that are not robustly justified/evidenced in respect of their future delivery (given that on this particular site an anchor supermarket operator has withdrawn, and planning permission will expire this year) and future iterations of the plan (including evidence base) should robustly corroborate the position on the deliverability of these sites, and this element of the residential capacity within Cheltenham.

We agree with the comment at 6.4.1 that "The existing built up area of Cheltenham is tightly constrained by Green Belt with very little undesignated land in which to expand." It is on this basis that it is essential that, as was previously proposed by the JCS (and other emerging plans before that), the fullest possible use of the undesignated 'white land' at Leckhampton should be made, and/or future sustainable development capacity in this location is not constrained by LGS designation that would not endure beyond the Plan Period (see response to Question 8 above). As noted previously the JCS Inspector's recommendation that a smaller development of around 200 units would be more appropriate has been made without the benefit of specific master planning for this smaller scale scheme, and it is likely that capacity of 300 units, or 400 units (for example) would exist, once detailed proposals are drawn up, having regard to updated landscape sensitivity evidence that specifically accounts for the construction of the Redrow Homes development (370) dwellings on the Farm Lane (SD2) site.

As the Council will be aware David Wilson Homes has an interest in the County Council owned land to the East of Farm Lane as shown on the attached location plan. This forms Site Ref S034 within the Appendix E assessment matrix where only flood risk is listed as a "critical constraint"; this is in contrast to other nearby parcels where landscape sensitivity is noted as being a specific constraint to development. Development on the northern part of this land (SO34) would integrate well with the surrounding urban morphology and ensure that suitable green space is preserved between new development and the AONB to the south, and other local heritage assets, as well as preserving the existing footpath routes across the site and views towards the AONB from them.
16 Mar 2017 17:06
Demoguide Limited (- -) [see attached] 20 Mar 2017 17:21
Galliard and Pye Homes (- -) Please refer to Continuation Sheet 22 Mar 2017 09:48
Newbridge Construction Limited… [see attachment] 20 Mar 2017 17:10
Taylor Wimpey Strategic Land (- -) [see attached] 20 Mar 2017 16:12
Alex Smith Yes 08 Feb 2017 19:40
Alice Ross I fully support the Borough's efforts not to propose building in the AONB and hope this will be confirmed in the Adopted Plan. For this reason too I support the maintenance of the existing Principal Urban Area boundary (as slightly amended) without urban extensions. IIt.was particularly pleasing to note that SALA considered neither sites CP 024 (Mill Lane: Castle Dream Stud) nor CP029 (Land South of Glenfall Way) to be deliverable or achievable. 16 Mar 2017 14:45
Alice Ross Yes 16 Mar 2017 14:45
Next pageLast page