Housing stock survey to protect Kingsholm’s family homes is delayed by council red-tape

Cllr. Angela Conder and Cllr. Jeremy Hilton at Oxford Road. One of the roads most affected by the loss of family homes being converted into Houses in Multiple Occupation

A promised housing stock survey in Kingsholm has been delayed yet again by council red-tape. The latest excuse was provided by the Conservative cabinet member in a written answer to a question from Lib Dem councillor for Kingsholm, Cllr. Jeremy Hilton.

The survey is planned so that the council can provide definitive evidence that too many family homes in Kingsholm are being converted into Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO).

A 130-signature petition was handed into the cabinet by Jeremy Hilton in November 2020. 

The Petition said:

“Too many family homes in Kingsholm are being converted into Houses in Multiple Occupation, without planning permission being required. It is currently permitted development for six persons or less.

I/We the undersigned demand that the city council starts work immediately on preparing evidence and documentation to apply to the Secretary of State to give Kingsholm the protection of an Article 4 Direction. This means that all conversions of family homes into Houses in Multiple Occupation would require planning permission.”

Cllr. Jeremy Hilton said:

“Lib Dems tried to amend the council plan in July 2020 to get the work started on a housing stock survey, but the Conservatives voted it down.

“That is why I raised an online petition to get public support. I handed it in at the November 2020 cabinet.

“Shortly afterwards, I met officers who suggested we schedule the survey work for April this year. Then it was delayed until the summer to be part of a countywide housing survey.

“Now the Cabinet Member for Planning and Housing Strategy says there have been delays because of legal queries and the tender documents haven’t been issued. It is ridiculous, the word incompetence comes to mind.

The written question and the answer published in the council papers of the 23rd of September 2021

Kingsholm ward colleague, Cllr. Angela Conder (Lib Dem) said:

“Kingsholm residents are frustrated by the Conservative council’s reluctance to treat Kingsholm as a special case. We see the onward creep of Houses in Multiple Occupation and the damage done to the community. Parking, noise and litter all contribute to the degradation of our once-quiet streets.”

Jeremy Hilton concluded: 

“It is very frustrating trying to get projects implemented at the city council. We are given dates, then later dates and then sometime never. The Conservatives have cut back so far, nothing seems to get done on time. The council has accurately been described as the ‘vanishing council’. 

“This housing stock survey is critical in getting our planning rules toughened up to protect Kingsholm’s family homes. It cannot be delayed further by red-tape or more accurately blue-tape.”

Debenhams building – future still uncertain

Debenhams set to close – building for sale

There has been speculation over the weekend (27 & 28 Feb) that the Debenhams building has been sold. This may or may not be the case. We know that Aviva has been talking to a number of buyers.

But a sale isn’t a sale until it’s been signed on the dotted line.

Secondly any purchaser, would want to talk to the city council ahead of the deal being completed. A sale therefore, may be subject to planning permission.

This morning, I have asked officers at the city council for an update. This is what I was told:

“We have not had any confirmation from the owners or any prospective purchasers that the building has been sold and therefore it would be wrong to speculate on what the terms of any hypothetical disposal may be.”

As I have said before, my preference is to see the building restored to its former glory and repurposed if necessary.

As a regular shopper at this store I am also disappointed to see Debenhams go into liquidation.

Debenhams building is not listed, though it sits in a conservation area so cannot be demolished without the council’s permission.

What I do not want to see is this landmark building demolished to make way for a new build.

The Lib Dem group are determined to work with the new owners to see this handsome building fully restored and fully occupied. It’s a focal point in our city centre. An important anchor for our new Kings Square.

67/69 London Road – some slow progress

Jeremy Hilton with the run down buildings on London Road in the background

On the 27th of July I met a representative of Pall Mall Estates, the owners of 67/69 London Road with the leader of the city council. Yesterday I had a telephone conversation to follow up on our recent email communications.

There has been some progress and Pall Mall have commissioned an architect to look at options for the site whether they be the conversion of the existing building or demolition and new build. Both for residential purposes.

The site is allocated for 30 dwellings in the city plan. Pall Mall are looking for 70 to 100 units. I think there are trying to squeeze too much onto the site and have told them so.

Here are the answers to some questions I put to Pall Mall

Cllr Hilton – Did the city council provide you with a list of its contacts from registered social landlords? 

Pall Mall – Yes

Cllr Hilton – Have you had any successful negotiations with Registered Social Landlord to progress a housing scheme for the site? 

Pall Mall – Not yet, albeit RSL focus has deviated away from apartment development meantime due to Covid. We anticipate this will be revived in due course.  

Cllr Hilton – How many housing units do you think would make a viable project? 

Pall Mall – Depending upon proposals (i.e. holistic new build or part conversion / part new build), tenure and end product we are looking in the region of 70-100 homes.

Cllr Hilton – Have you made contact with Homes England about securing some public funds?

Pall Mall – Developer/RSL to make enquiries.

Cllr Hilton – What value do you need to get from the sale. I have heard £4 million? 

Pall Mall – Yes.

Cllr Hilton – Have you had since we met any non-housing enquiries? 

Pall Mall – None I can recollect.

GLEVUM GREEN (REDROW) – STREET CLEANING – LORRIES

I have been in contact with the site manager of Glevum Green housing development. In particular, I have expressed concern about the cleaning of neighbouring streets to clear the mud from the roads and the use of the Wotton Pitch route along Denmark by lorries visiting the construction site.

Redrow contractor cleaning Kingsholm Road

STREET CLEANING

Road sweeping Schedule has been increased due to the wet weather. The road sweeper is now in use during working hours every day Monday to Friday. Redrow tell me they have introduced extra measures to reduce mud reaching the road. A bowser has been introduced to wash the wheels of vehicles leaving the site.

Approved route for lorries visiting development site

TRANSPORT ROUTE

Lorries should NOT be travelling to and from the site via the London Road direction. All vehicles should arrive and leave by accessing Kingsholm Road. See the approved route map. Redrow have told me they have reminded their groundworks contractors of the approved route to the site and the banksman team at the dispatch end have been told to remind drivers of the approved exit route.

If you do see lorries travelling down Denmark Road from Wotton Pitch/London Road try and capture a photo or record their number plate and email me at Jeremy.hilton@gloucestershire.gov.uk with time and date and I will report the matter to the site manager for you.

Petition to save family homes in Kingsholm handed in by Jeremy Hilton

Jeremy Hilton on Oxford Road one of the areas with large number of HMOs. The road is full of ‘to let’ signs right now.

Lib Dem councillor Jeremy Hilton has handed into the city cabinet, the petition he raised, calling for the protection of family homes in Kingsholm. There is much concern about the number of homes now being converted into Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO).

Currently, family homes converted into HMOs for six persons or fewer do not require planning permission, as it is permitted development.

Family homes are being converted into properties suitable for renting and this can lead to issues with noise, rubbish and parking.

There can also be problems with getting landlords to deal with incidents of anti-social behaviour.

Earlier this year Jeremy Hilton and Isabel Brazil tried to amend the council’s work plan to start on the survey work, which is required as precursor to getting an Article 4 Direction. But the Tories voted it down.

An Article 4 Direction would require all conversions to HMO’s to have planning permission.

In addressing the cabinet, Jeremy Hilton urged that the cabinet start work now not later. He pointed out that once the council has got an Article 4 Direction, it will still be another 12 months before it would come into force.

Jeremy Hilton said: “There are too many modest family homes in Kingsholm being converted into HMO’s, by absentee landlords. They are just trying to maximise their income. They don’t care about a balanced community. Already, Oxford Road, St Mark Street and Henry Road for example are being overrun by HMO conversions. We need proper regulation. The cabinet must now act on my petition.”

The online petition raised 130 signatures mostly from Kingsholm residents. 

It has been backed by Lib Dem campaigner and resident Angela Conder, a signatory to the petition. She said: “I love living in Kingsholm, but I am worried that new HMOs are being established at far too fast a pace. Rightly, residents are worried about unregulated change that is taking place. We need an Article 4 Direction.”

The petition was received by the cabinet member for communities and neighbourhoods. She promised to respond to its request.

Lib Dem councillor Isabel Brazil concluded: “If St Paul’s in Cheltenham can have an Article 4 Direction, requiring planning permission for all new HMOs, then so can Kingsholm. We must protect our community from unregulated change.”

Jeremy Hilton raises objections to planning officer’s report to approve 100 houses on former Civil Service Sports Ground

Jeremy Hilton fighting to save the Civil Service Sports Ground

Jeremy Hilton has written to the city council development control team to raise objections to their recommendation to approve Redrow’s planning application 18/00306/FUL to build 100 houses on the former Civil Service Club Sports Ground.

Cllr. Hilton believes this to be inconsistent with the planning committee’s decision on the 4th December when it rejected the application for 89 properties on the same site. The planning committee are meeting on Tuesday the 8th of January at 6pm to determine the application for 100 houses.

 

Redrow’s plan for 100 houses on former sports fields, in heart of Kingsholm

Jeremy Hilton has listed ten reasons why the application should be rejected. Here are his objections in full.

A. Housing Types:

The development meets the 20% affordable homes target, with appropriate mix of housing types, but it does not meet the requirement for market housing mix, with no provision for one or two bedroom homes. Kingsholm & Wotton has a good mix of housing and so should any new development in the ward. The applicant proposes 31 three bedroom houses and 49 four bedroom houses. The mix according to SHMA should be 9 one bedroom homes, 23 two bedroom homes, 30 three bedroom homes and 18 four bedroom homes. Rejection on this policy alone would be consistent with the committee decision on the 89 house application.

B. Land Purchase:

The applicants purchased the sports ground from the Civil Service Sports Council Ltd for just £10,000 in 2011 (GR355501). The applicants should publicly declare the details of the uplift clause they have with Civil Service Sports Council Ltd.

I believe it is this legal agreement that is responsible for the maximisation of housing on the site rather than what one would expect in open discussion with the council and community on a development brief that would benefit all. Some degree of housing whilst retaining the main sports field for sport and recreation, would benefit everyone.

C. Alternative sport provision:

It may be that the land has not been used for sport for more than five years, but that is because of a deliberate policy by the landowners to close the ground for sporting activities.

I am disappointed that Sport England have changed their objection to the development. I don’t think a cash gift from Redrow of £2m to the city council to be spent elsewhere in Gloucester on sports provision adequately compensates for the loss of the playing fields that are in the heart of Kingsholm.

The applicant has been unable to identify alternative provision elsewhere in Kingsholm & Wotton and therefore some sports provision should be retained on site. Spartans Rugby Club that is based in Sherborne Street would support the provision here for an additional rugby pitch for the club to use.

D. Joint Core Strategy INF3

The proposed development of 100 dwellings in my opinion is not consistent with JCS policy on green infrastructure. The former Civil Service Sport Ground provides a worthy green infrastructure asset that should be protected to help resolve the shortage of open space in Kingsholm and Wotton.

I believe it is not beyond the wit of Redrow Homes to come up with a development solution that would provide much needed housing whilst retaining a large open space that could continue to be used for sport and recreation.

The impact on the biodiversity from the wholesale building on the site will be negative. Two badger sets as indicated in the report will disappear if the development proceeds. Trees will be felled. The report also states that the development will create the loss of a foraging area for bats.

The proposed tiny public open space is tucked away in the corner of the site giving the impression that it is an exclusive space for residents of the estate rather than one that is inclusive for everyone living in Kingsholm to use. A large percentage of the public open space is set out as a flood attenuation basin, making the space practicably unusable for recreational purposes.

 Here is Policy INF3

  1. The green infrastructure network of local and strategic importance will be conserved and enhanced, in order to deliver a series of multifunctional, linked green corridors across the JCS area by:
    i. Improving the quantity and/or quality of assets;
    ii. Improving linkages between assets in a manner appropriate to the scale of development, and
    iii. Designing improvements in a way that supports the cohesive management of green
    infrastructure;
  2. Development proposals should consider and contribute positively towards green infrastructure, including the wider landscape context and strategic corridors between major assets and populations. Where new residential development will create, or add to, a need for publicly accessible green space or outdoor space for sports and recreational on, this will be fully met in accordance with Policy INF4. Development at Strategic Allocations will be required to deliver connectivity through the site, linking urban areas with the wider rural hinterland
  3. Existing green infrastructure will be protected in a manner that reflects its contribution
    to ecosystem services (including biodiversity, landscape/townscape quality, the historic environment, public access, recreation and play) and the connectivity of the green infrastructure network. Development proposals that will have an impact on woodlands, hedges and trees will need to include a justification for why this impact cannot be avoided and should incorporate measures acceptable to the Local Planning Authority to mitigate the loss. Mitigation should be provided on-site or, where this is not possible, in the immediate environs of the site
  4. Where assets are created, retained or replaced within a scheme, they should be properly integrated into the design and contribute to local character and distinctiveness. Proposals should also make provisions for future maintenance of green infrastructure.

E. Joint Core Strategy INF4

The lack of serious community engagement by Redrow ahead of this planning application, about the future use of the site, is lamentable. They locked the gates and closed down the sporting use, even though it was a well used facility.

Redrow have only presented plans that have proposed the complete building on the site, with the total loss of the playing fields. They have never properly consulted with anyone who lives in Kingsholm.

The proposal for provide £148,784.31 towards the Sebert Street Recreation Ground play area has NOT been discussed with the community. This is currently one of the best play areas in the city that was created by the parents of Kingsholm Kids at Play. I am concerned about possible overdevelopment of the Sebert Street Recreational Ground as proposed in the officer’s report. What about Deans Way Meadow? Why is there no onsite provision?

There is no clarity in the officer recommendations on what the Section 106 financial agreement will be and what positive impact these will have on the local community.

I believe Redrow have failed to meet the requirement of Joint Core Strategy policy INF4 for social and community infrastructure

Here is Policy INF4

  1. Proposals to develop land or buildings currently or previously in use as a community facility will demonstrate, including evidence of engagement with relevant local community groups and partner organisations, why the facility is no longer required and, as appropriate, how, when and where suitable local replacement facilities will be provided. Provision of replacement facilities will have regard to the locational and other relevant elements of this policy
  2. Where new residential development will create, or add to, a need for community facilities, it will be fully met as on-site provision and/or as a contribution to facilities or services onsite. New or refurbished provision will be of an appropriate type, standard and size. From an early stage, developers will be expected to engage with the relevant local authorities and infrastructure providers and, as appropriate, relevant local community groups where they exist, to ensure that new provision meets the needs of the community that it will serve and is t for purpose
  3. Social and community infrastructure should be centrally located to the population it serves and
    be easily accessible on foot and by bicycle. It should be located so as to have the potential to be well-served by public transport. Developers should aim to provide flexible, multifunctional facilities within mixed-use developments, creating shared space which maximises benefits to the community and minimises land-take. In the case of open space, ‘easily accessible’ means it is located within reasonable walking distance of the development it serves. New facilities should be accessible to all members of the community, and be planned and phased in parallel with new development.

 F. Joint Core Strategy INF6

This development, as did the one for 89 houses, fails to meet the requirement of this policy. The site will increase carbon emissions rather than reduce them with large increase of vehicles into the area around Denmark Road. It will reduce the opportunity to improve the health of local people in the area by reducing the local opportunity for sport and recreation for residents of Kingsholm.

Kingsholm Primary School, which is a vibrant and popular school has expressed concern about their ability to cope with the additional children going to the school and the possible detriment to children from traveller families, who may no longer be able to get it.

Here is Policy INF6

  1. Where infrastructure requirements are generated as a result of individual site proposals and / or having regard to cumulative impact, new development will be served and supported by adequate and appropriate on- and / or off-site infrastructure and services. In identifying infrastructure requirements, development proposals will also demonstrate that full regard has been given, where appropriate, to implementing the requirements of the Joint Core Strategy Infrastructure Delivery Plan
  2.  Where need for additional infrastructure and services and / or impacts on existing infrastructure and services is expected to arise, the Local Planning Authority will seek to secure appropriate infrastructure which is necessary, directly related, and fairly and reasonably related to the scale and kind of the development proposal, including:
  •  Broadband infrastructure
  • Climate change mitigation/adaptation;
  • Community and cultural facilities and initiatives;
  • Early Years and Education;
  • Health and well-being facilities and sport, recreation and leisure facilities;
  • The highway network, traffic management, sustainable transport and disabled people’s access;
  • Protection of cultural and heritage assets and the potential for their enhancement;
  • Protection of environmental assets and the potential for their enhancement;
  • Provision of Green Infrastructure including open space;
  • Public realm;
  • Safety and security including emergency services.

3. Priority for provision will be assessed both on a site-by-site basis and having regard to the mitigation of cumulative impact, together with implementation of the JCS Infrastructure Delivery Plan

4. Planning permission will be granted only where sufficient provision has been made for infrastructure and services (together with their continued maintenance) to meet the needs of new development and / or which are required to mitigate the impact of new development upon existing communities. Infrastructure and services must be provided in line with an agreed, phased timescale and in accordance with other requirements of this Plan.

G. Draft City Plan Policy SA06

The provision of 100 dwellings is in my opinion is overdevelopment of the site, which is in the heart of Kingsholm. Council policy as identified in the draft City Plan, which was approved by council in December 2016, recommends a maximum of 20 dwellings (SA06).

The proposal of 100 dwellings exceeds this policy by 500%, with the complete loss of the playing fields.

A compromise of 40 dwellings, for example, on this site would mean that the former sports field could be brought back into use

H. Layout of the site:

The layout of the site does not follow the usual street pattern that is evident in Kingsholm. It is adjacent to both the Kingsholm and Denmark Road conservation areas.

I am concerned that the narrow streets on estate may become clogged up with motorists parking their cars on footpaths. This is a problem that will be exacerbated during times when there are rugby matches being played at the Kingsholm stadium.

If 89 houses was an overdevelopment of the site as mentioned in the minutes of the December meeting then surely 100 houses is more so. There is still concern about the closeness of houses next to Bijou Court. There are a few areas where the relationships are below 21 metres separation, a concern raised by the planning officer.

I. Highway access:

The proposed access onto Denmark Road is unacceptable. It closes the slip road to Lansdown Road and removes much-needed parking spaces on Denmark Road.

The closure of the slip road will create more vehicle conflict at the other junction with Lansdown Road. This will be a particular problem when school coaches use this junction. Parents often park illegally on double yellow lines at this point. The problem will become much worse.

The closure of the slip road will also remove the U-turn provision it provides for the houses serviced off the dual carriageway section of Denmark Road on the south side.

J. Public open space:

Kingsholm & Wotton has a low level of public open space as identified in the city council’s open spaces strategy. The officer report confirms this to be the case. The council’s public open space standard is 2.8ha per 1000 population.

Based on the new ward boundaries introduced at the 2016 election the ward has just 0.49ha per 1,000 population. Or 3.59ha for a population based on mid 2016 of 7,259 persons.

An opportunity is being missed in the proposed development to achieve a good increase in public open space provision in the ward because of the wholesale development of the site.

Jeremy Hilton’s letter to Planning Inspectorate – Redrow appeal

Redrow Homes has appealed to the Secretary of State about Gloucester City Council’s non-determination of their planning application to build 89 dwellings on the former Civil Service Sports Ground off Estcourt Road. Application reference 16/00968/FUL.

This controversial application raised many objections from local residents when it was originally deposited with the council in 2016.

The deadline for comments to the Planning Inspectorate from the public was the 9th of August this year. Jeremy Hilton’s letter is below.

Gloucester City Council has still to respond. Within a few weeks the council will take its response to the planning committee for approval, before it is sent to the Planning Inspectorate.

 

 

Jeremy Hilton fighting to save the Civil Service Sports Ground

Jeremy Hilton’s Letter to Planning Inspectorate

I write to ask you to dismiss the appeal by Redrow Homes related to the planning application for 89 houses on the former Civil Service Sports Club ground (Ref:16/00968/FUL).

I am the local county and city councillor for Kingsholm & Wotton.

On the 19th of April 2017, I did write to the case officer at Gloucester City Council pointing out that the application was then seven months old and that it should be determined with a recommendation to refuse.

The council said they were giving more time to Redrow to resolve the issue about the loss of sports pitches. Redrow had not in April 2017 nor since provided evidence on how they would mitigate for the loss of the playing fields.

There is a shortage of rugby and football pitches in Gloucester. Spartans Ruby Club, which is based in Kingsholm, is looking for an additional pitch near to its club house, which is in neighbouring Sherborne Street.

The High School for Girls, which is in Denmark Road has also spoken to me about possible use of the sports field if it is saved from development.

All Redrow have done since acquiring the site in 2011 (for just £10,000) is shut the gates and demolish the club house etc, making the facilities unavailable for active sport that it had previously been used for.

Similarly, since acquiring the site Redrow have failed to properly discuss the future of the playing fields with the local community that is required in the Joint Core Strategy policy INF4. The lack of community engagement is lamentable.

Redrow’s idea of consultation has been to lodge two full planning applications with the council, leaving no opportunity for the council or the community to hold discussions about how the site could be developed for some housing, but leaving the rest of the site available for sport and recreation.

As Keith Annis a senior manager at Redrow once told me they were playing for time. The question must be asked why has it taken them nearly two years from depositing the planning application to lodge an appeal?

For Redrow to appeal against non-determination is rather hypocritical, particularly to do this only a few weeks after lodging a new planning application for 100 dwellings on the same site (Ref 18/00306/FUL)

Further Comments

A.    Affordable housing:

The plan for affordable homes did not meet the council’s then standard, when the application was submitted, which was 40 %. The application lists 18 dwellings as intermediate housing, this is equates to 20% of the build.

It was impossible for the council to approve an application that did not meet this standard. Subsequently, the Joint Core Strategy has been adopted, where the new limit is set at 20%.

B. Land Purchase:

The applicants purchased the sports ground from the Civil Service Sports Council Ltd for just £10,000 in 2011 (GR355501). The applicants should publicly declare the details of the uplift clause they have with Civil Service Sports Council Ltd.

I believe it is this legal agreement that is responsible for the maximisation of housing on the site rather than what one would expect an open discussion with the council and community on a development brief that would benefit all.

Some degree of housing whilst retaining the main sports field for sport and recreation, would benefit everyone.

C.    Alternative sport provision:

It may be that the land has not been used for sport for more than five years, but that is because of a deliberate policy by the landowners to close the ground for sporting activities.

I concur with Sport England that the application should be refused.

The applicants have failed to identify alternative facilities that could accommodate sporting activities that previously took place on the Civil Service Sports ground.

In my opinion, alternative provision must be within the Kingsholm & Wotton ward.

D. Joint Core Strategy INF3

The proposed development of 89 dwellings in my opinion is not consistent with JCS policy on green infrastructure. The former Civil Service Sport Ground provides a worthy green infrastructure asset that should be protected to help resolve the shortage of open space in Kingsholm and Wotton.

I believe it is not beyond the wit of all parties to come up with a development solution that would provide much needed housing whilst retaining a large open space that could continue to be used for sport and recreation.

Here is Policy INF3

1. The green infrastructure network of local and strategic importance will be conserved and enhanced, in order to deliver a series of multifunctional, linked green corridors across the JCS area by:
i. Improving the quantity and/or quality of assets;
ii. Improving linkages between assets in a manner appropriate to the scale of development, and
iii. Designing improvements in a way that supports the cohesive management of green
infrastructure;
2. Development proposals should consider and contribute positively towards green infrastructure, including the wider landscape context and strategic corridors between major assets and populations. Where new residential development will create, or add to, a need for publicly accessible green space or outdoor space for sports and recreational on, this will be fully met in accordance with Policy INF4. Development at Strategic Alloca ons will be required to deliver connectivity through the site, linking urban areas with the wider rural hinterland
3. Existing green infrastructure will be protected in a manner that reflects its contribution
to ecosystem services (including biodiversity, landscape / townscape quality, the historic environment, public access, recreation and play) and the connectivity of the green infrastructure network. Development proposals that will have an impact on woodlands, hedges and trees will need to include a jus ca on for why this impact cannot be avoided and should incorporate measures acceptable to the Local Planning Authority to mi gate the loss. Mi ga on should be provided on-site or, where this is not possible, in the immediate environs of the site
4. Where assets are created, retained or replaced within a scheme, they should be properly integrated into the design and contribute to local character and distinctiveness. Proposals should also make provisions for future maintenance of green infrastructure.

E. Joint Core Strategy INF4

As I have previously mentioned the lack of serious community engagement by Redrow ahead of this planning application, about the future use of the site, is lamentable.

Redrow have only showed plans that have proposed the complete building on the site, with the loss of the playing fields. They have never properly consulted anyone.

I believe they failed to meet the requirement of Joint Core Strategy policy INF4 for social and community infrastructure

Here is Policy INF4

1. Proposals to develop land or buildings currently or previously in use as a community facility will demonstrate, including evidence of engagement with relevant local community groups and partner organisations, why the facility is no longer required and, as appropriate, how, when and where suitable local replacement facilities will be provided. Provision of replacement facilities will have regard to the locational and other relevant elements of this policy
2. Where new residential development will create, or add to, a need for community facilities, it will be fully met as on-site provision and/or as a contribution to facilities or services o -site. New or refurbished provision will be of an appropriate type, standard and size. From an early stage, developers will be expected to engage with the relevant local authorities and infrastructure providers and, as appropriate, relevant local community groups where they exist, to ensure that new provision meets the needs of the community that it will serve and is t for purpose
3. Social and community infrastructure should be centrally located to the population it serves and
be easily accessible on foot and by bicycle. It should be located so as to have the potential to be well-served by public transport. Developers should aim to provide flexible, multifunctional facilities within mixed-use developments, creating shared space which maximises benefits to the community and minimises land-take. In the case of open space, ‘easily accessible’ means it is located within reasonable walking distance of the development it serves. New facilities should be accessible to all members of the community, and be planned and phased in parallel with new development.

F. Draft City Plan Policy SA06

The provision of 89 dwellings is in my opinion is overdevelopment of the site, which is in the heart of Kingsholm.

Council policy as identified in the draft City Plan, which was approved by council in December 2016, recommends a maximum of twenty dwellings (SA06).

The proposal of 89 dwellings exceeds this policy by 445%, with the complete loss of the playing fields.

A compromise of 40 dwellings, for example, on this site would mean that the former sports field could be brought back into use.

G. Layout of the site:

The layout of the site does not follow the usual street pattern that is evident in Kingsholm. It is adjacent to both the Kingsholm and Denmark Road conservation areas.

I am concerned that the narrow streets on estate may be become clogged up with motorists parking their cars on footpaths. This is a problem that will be exacerbated during times when there are rugby matches being played at the Kingsholm stadium.

The small public open space is set out to give the impression that it is an exclusive space just for the new residents of the estate. New public open space should laid out to be inclusive and available to all Kingsholm residents.

H.    Highway access:

I am not convinced by the design of the access point onto Estcourt Road slip road.

The proposed access onto Denmark Road is unacceptable. It closes the slip road to Lansdown Road and removes much-needed parking spaces on Denmark Road.

The closure of the slip road will create more vehicle conflict at the other junction with Lansdown Road. This will be a particular problem when school coaches use this junction.

The closure of the slip road will also remove the u-turn provision it provides for the houses serviced off the dual carriageway section of Denmark Road on the south side.

I.    Public open space:

Kingsholm & Wotton has a low level of public open space as identified in the city council’s open spaces strategy. The council’s standard is 2.8ha per 1000

Based on the new ward boundaries introduced at the 2016 election the ward has just 0.49ha per 1,000 population. Or 3.59ha for a population based on mid 2016 of 7,259 persons.

An opportunity is being missed in the proposed development to achieve a good increase in public open space provision in the ward by the wholesale development of the site, which was formerly used for sport and recreation.

I would recommend that this appeal is dismissed.

Air Pollution report published

Tackling air pollution in Gloucestershire from vehicle emissions is set to be an important priority for Gloucestershire County Council. Today the report of the air pollution task group, chaired by Cllr. Jeremy Hilton (Lib Dem Kingsholm & Wotton), is published.

According to Public Health England, poor air quality is the largest environmental risk to public health in the UK, and the Royal College of Physicians has estimated that poor air quality is responsible for 40,000 premature deaths in the UK annually.

Exposure to air pollution can affect health by contributing to the development of cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, and respiratory diseases, and can limit an individual’s quality of life.

Cllr. Jeremy Hilton said: “Public bodies in Gloucestershire need to do much more to reduce vehicle air pollution. We have a number of poor air quality hot spots in the county. Nitrogen Dioxides and particulate matter from vehicle emissions is a hazard to everyone’s health in the county. We have to take action to reduce these pollutants.

“I shall be taking the report of the air pollution task group to the Environment & Community Scrutiny Committee next week, where I hope it is approved, before it is sent on to the county cabinet on the 6th of June.”

The report has a dozen recommendations that include the establishment of a Gloucestershire Air Quality Partnership to oversee future work. This will be helped by better air quality monitoring with a focus on particulate matter. Changes to planning policies are suggested. Highway interventions are recommended to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution.

The task group wishes to encourage the greater use of electric vehicles and also to set stronger targets to increase journeys by bicycle, on foot and public transport. It wants to see the use low emissions buses etc.

Cllr Hilton concluded: “This report is just a start. I would like to that everyone who came along to the workshop we held in January and to the members of the air pollution task group that helped draft the report.”

Objections expected to flood in over 100 homes plans for Civil Service sports ground

Isabel Brazil and Jeremy Hilton with the former Civil Service sports ground in background

Plans have been submitted to build 100 homes on the grounds of the former Civil Service club in Kingsholm.

Liberal Democrat councillors are opposed to so many properties being built on the Estcourt Road site because it will take away valuable green space for local people.

The application by Redrow Homes to Gloucester City Council is an increase of 11 properties on a previous application of 89 homes, which is yet to be determined by the planning committee.

Councillor Jeremy Hilton, who represents Kingsholm Ward on the city council, said the new application is in contravention of several council polices.

“The area has less public open space than the council says is necessary for the local population,” said Councillor Hilton.

“This application will take away valuable green space in the heart of Kingsholm. We do need more houses, but not so many at this location.

“The council’s draft city plan says the maximum on the site should be 20. This would leave the large field untouched and available for sport and recreation.

“Sport England raised objections to the previous application of 89 houses I imagine they will do the same for 100 dwellings.”

It is expected that the council will receive many objections as it did on the previous application, added Councillor Hilton.

Councillor Isabel Brazil, who also represents Kingsholm Ward, said: “We need to protect the green spaces in Kingsholm. There just isn’t enough locally, especially public open space.

“We are supporting plans for new housing on London Road and off Great Western Road, but the maximum permitted at Civil Service Club must be 20.”

Councillor Hilton added: “Redrow has been unable to find an alternative sports site nearby, so they are proposing as a sop to the council a cash contribution to be spent on sports fields in the south of Gloucester.

“Kingsholm will lose out. This is unfair.”

Both councillors are recommending that local people send in individual letters of objection, which can be also be done online at www.gloucester.gov.uk The planning document reference is 18/00306/FUL

We must save art panels from the former BHS store

Jeremy Hilton with the art panels in the background

The future of the three concrete art panels on the front of the former BHS shop in Eastgate Street is under question. A planning application by Reef Estates to remodel the shop front has been deposited with the city council. It will include the removal and relocation of the three concrete art panels currently on the front wall of the store.

Liberal Democrat councillor, Jeremy Hilton has written to the council asking for the art panels to be safely removed and relocated.

Art panel depicting goods on sale

Cllr. Hilton said:

“It is most important that the three concrete art panels are preserved. The city council and Reef Estates must agree on how the panels are to be removed and relocated before planning permission is granted. We don’t want a bodge job being done.

“The three concrete art panels are about 45 years old and depict the goods on sale in the shops at the time. This is good public art and very much of its time. They must be retained and displayed in the city centre.

“The applicants have suggested relocating the art panels to Clarence Street, which I believe is acceptable. However, the art panels should be displayed and illuminated to show them off in the best way possible. I would also like to see an interpretation board nearby explaining how they were made including the details of the original artists.”

Similar art panels have appeared on other BHS stores around the country in towns such as Stockport and Newcastle-Upon-Tyne.

Artists Joyce Pallot & Henry Collins

Jeremy Hilton added:

“I believe Gloucester panels are the work of Joyce Pallot (1912-2004) and Henry Collins (1910-1994) – two artist/designers, who along with John Nash, established the Colchester Art Society, during the 1930s.

“They never worked on the site itself, but used a regular contractor Hutton’s Builders Ltd of Colchester, who cast the panels. Their work must be preserved.”