|Date of meeting:
||8 July 1997
||Development Control Sub-Committee
||Redevelopment of of the St.James site, Cheltenham
Abstract (plain text version of the report)
DATE 8 JULY 1997
REDEVELOPMENT OF THE ST. JAMES SITE, CHELTENHAM
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT
1. PURPOSE OF REPORT
To advise members of redevelopment proposals for the St James site
in Cheltenham with their implications for traffic and
transportation in the town and on the former Honeybourne railway
To note the actions being persued by the Department of Environment
that the content of this report be drawn to the attention of the
Government Office for the South West.
3. PRIORITY OBJECTIVES/KEY TASK IMPLICATIONS
Priority Objective No.10 proposes improvements to public passenger
4. RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
If the Secretary of State decides to call in these applications and
require them to be subjected to a public inquiry, there will be a
considerable requirement for officer time in preparatory work and
attendance at the inquiry, with supporting reports by our
5. ENVIRONMENTAL LOSS OR BENEFIT
Traffic issues and the loss of a potential public transport
corridor are at the heart of this report.
6. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS
Pedestrian access is a key element of concern expressed in the
7. ANTI-POVERTY IMPLICATIONS
Re-use of the St James site with employment generating land uses
will provide local job opportunities.
8. DEPARTMENTAL CONTACT
Ken Kemp, Transport Strategy Manager.
It is important that I take this opportunity to draw members
attention to the current situation with this issue.
9.1 At Environment Committee in June 1996, members considered two
reports concerning proposed development of the St James site in
Cheltenham. Agenda item 12A dealt with the Borough Council’s
draft regeneration strategy. Committee’s resolutions are
9.2 The second report was in response to a motion by Councillor
Rawson, dealing more directly with the transportation aspects of
the development. The resolutions of Committee are also
9.3 Members will note the emphasis that Committee laid on the need
for traffic limitation measures associated with the development,
and the requirement to retain the former Honeybourne line railway
embankment for the purposes of passenger transport, cycling and
9.4 Earlier this year, copies of outline planning applications
concerning redevelopment of the St James site and removal of the
Honeybourne embarkment were passed to me for comment on highway
matters. Copies of letters of response from my Projects and Traffic
Manager are appended. Members will note the concerns expressed, in
particular regarding the proposed removal of the former railway
embankment and many aspects of the Traffic Impact Assessment, e.g.
the levels of traffic attracted to the site, the amount of car
parking, the impact on key town centre junctions, the failure to
consider adequately the traffic impact of the proposed closure of
“Boots Corner”, and the failure to deal adequately with
public transport, cycling and walking.
9.5 The Cheltenham Borough Planning Committee considered the
application on 26th June. Officers recommended approval subject to
a large number of conditions, and at the Committee meeting a
further condition was added by members with the intention of
preserving the railway embankment.
9.6 While the additional condition is very valuable in setting out
Borough Council Members’ concerns for the future of the
former Honeybourne line embankment, and to be welcomed, it is my
view that as a condition it is not specific enough to prevent a
substantial loss of embankment. In addition, I am concerned that
insufficient regard has been paid to the traffic and transportation
aspects of the development. I am confident that a fresh approach by
the developers in consultation with my staff could result in a
satisfactory resolution to these concerns.
9.7 I intend to persue with the Borough Council the relationship
between the planning conditions and the outline Heads of Terms and
would further intend to view the Cheltenham Joint Member Transport
Liaison Group as a suitable forum for progressing this issue. I
recommend that the content of this report be transmitted without
delay to the Government Office for the South West so that the
Secretary of State may take into account the views of this
Planning applications CB 2184/00, CBC 311/00
Agenda Items 12A and 12B Environment Committee 24th June 1996
Letters dated 27th May and 20th June from Projects and Traffic
Director of Environment
ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 24th JUNE 1996
AGENDA ITEM 12
(b) HESPONSETO MOTION NO.406 BY COUNCILLOR RAWSON
The Committee considered the above report attached to the Agenda
1. Notes progress on studies and discussions concerning transport
in the centre of Cheltenham, principally related to the development
of the St.James Station Site.
2. Reaffirms its opposition to any proposals which would affect the
integrity of the Honeybourne railway line route for passenger
3. Agrees that the current scheme for the Extended Inner Ring Road
should be withdrawn, and that a revised Joint County Council
Borough Council transport strategy be brought to this Committee for
approval at the earliest opportunity.
The strategy must provide:-
(a) comprehensive measures to bring about traffic reduction with
properly thought out pedestrianisation, bus and cycle access to the
town centre and better and more direct cross town routes for buses
(b) a commitment to the future of a bus station centrally located
so as to promote effective modal transport integration and tackle
the dereliction in this key central area (e.g. the current
(c) a commitment to making best use of the road network already
present, with only minimal road building.
24th JUNE 1996
AGENDA ITEM 12A
(a) LAND PLANNING ISSUES- CHELTENHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL’S
‘DRAFT STRATEGY FOR REGENERATION"
The Committee considered the above report attached to the Agenda
Notes the Draft Strategy’s broad consistency with the
provisions of th Gloucestershire Structure Plan First Alteration
(1992) and the emergin. Cheltentham Borough Local Plan.
Supports in principle the Draft Strategy providing that, in
relation to vacant site development and area redevelopment
initiatives, th Borough Council has full regard to the following
(i) The importance of consistently addressing the challenges and
aims of the Draft Strategjr relating to affordable housing
provision within the core of the town and job creation throughout
(ii) The importance of not prejudicing the emerging strategy for
the Borough contained within the Draft Gloucestershire Structure
Plan Second Review; namely, optimising the use of vacant and jj
redeveloped sites within the Borough for housing and employment
development and containing the expansion of the built-up area, in
particular due to Green Belt considerations.
(iii) The importance of not undermining the implementation of the
County Council’s Transport Plan for Gloucestershire by
limiting the amount of traffic generated by the development of
these sites, in the interests of protecting Cheltenham’s
built, historic and green environment and .in the light of wider
Reason; to prevent pollution of the water environment.
1. The reserved matters submission(s) shall make provision for the
replacement of the school playing fields in the ownership of St
Gregory’s School (located between Millbrook Street and Market
Street) in accordance with the School Premises Regulations (1996),
in all respects to the satisfaction of the LPA.
Reason: to ensure that appropriate provision of playing field space
is made for all school users.
No works shall be commenced prior to the securing of the
replacement playing fields referred to in the preceding condition
either by permanent alternative facilities or by temporary
arrangements coupled with binding contracts to secure permanent
facilities, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning
Reason; to ensure that appmpri ate provision of playing field space
is made for the school.
3. No development of any description shall take place on the site
prior to the diversion of, or other appropriate alteration to, the
public sewers which cross the site.
Reason: to avoid damage to the existing infrastructure.
4. No development for retail, leisure or commercial purposes shall
take place prior to the construction of the new link road between
Gloucester Road and St George’s Road to a standard suitable
for use by construction vehicles.
Reason: to provide adequate means of access for construction
S. The resened matters submission(s) shall include precise details
of the methods proposed to ameliorate the effects of contamination
of the sub-soil within the development site. Such details should
identify construction techniques and/or areas and depths of
Reason: to ensure that the existing contamination is satisfactorily
6. No discharge of foul or contaminated drainage shall be made from
the site into either round waters or surface waters, whether direct
or via soakaways
7. There shall be no construction of buildings or other structures
within S m either side of the open channel of the River Chelt
(measured from the bank top) or within 3 m of either side of the
river where it flows in culvert. Accessways to the maintenance
strips so formed shall be of a minimum width of 5 m.
Reason: to provide for access to the watercourse for maintenance at
The reserved matters submission(s) shall include details of the
proposed attentions to the River Chelt.
Reason: to ensure that the flow regime of the river is not
adversely affected and is upgraded to pmvide for a 1 in 100 year
return period flood.
The John Lewis/Waitrose retail element shall comprise no more than
50% food sales and 50% ‘comparison goods’ measured as
retail floorspace. Comparison goods sales shall be restricted to
light household goods such as kitchenware, lighting accessories,
radios, toasters, bed linen, towels and similar products used in
the furnishing of the home.
Reason: The application has been assessed on the basis of the
figures submitted and a variation in the allocation of retail
floorspace will require further assessment to test its effect the
vitality and viability of the town centre.
The reserved matters submission shall provide for residential
development fronting the undeveloped length of Market Street on its
south west side between Gloucester Road and the Honeybourne
Reason: to maintain and enhance the residential character of Market
No development of any description shall take place on site prior to
the carrying out of an archaeological field evaluation of the
Reason: to ensure that the archaeological potential of the site is
12. Subject to the findings of the archaeological field evaluation
referred to in the preceding conditions, any artefacts or
below-ground evidence revealed shall be preserved and/or
recorded either in-situ or elsewhere in accordance with the
requirements of the Gloucestershire County Archaeological Officer.
The reserved matters submissions shall comply with those
Reason: to ensure the proper recording of items of archaeological
The developer shall afford access at all reasonable tftnes to any
archaeologist nominated by the LPA, and shall allow him to observe
the excavations and record items of interest and finds..
Reason: to assist in compiling the archaeological record of the
The reserved matters submissions(s) shall provide for the
reservation of a route through the site suitable for the provision
of a rapid passenger transport system running along the route of
the Honeybourne Line cycle/footpath.
Reason: to comply with Policy TP101 of the CBLP.
The reserved matters submission(s) shall provide for the
continuation of links segregated from motor traffic for pedestrians
and cyclists between the north and south sections of the
Honeybourne Line cycle/footpath and the Chelt Walk.
Reason: to ensure the continuation of these existing segregated
16. The reserved matters submission(s) shall provide for a
convenient and signed pedestrian and cycle route along the line of
the River Chelt (including that part of the river which runs in
Reason: in furtherance of Council Action RCA101 of the Cheltenhan,
Local Plan (Working Draft 1996) (CBLP).
17. The reserved matters submission(s) shall include provision for
access into the site by the "Mover” public transport system,
conventional buses, pedestrians and cyclists.
Reason: to provide convenient public access to the site.
18. The reserved matters submission(s) shall make provision for
secure cycle parking within the site.
Reason: to encourage the use of bicycles for access to the
19. No parts of the development shall be occupied prior to their
respective car parking and servicing provision being made available
Reason: to ensure that adequate off-street parking is available, in
the interests of highway safety.
20. A survey to establish a base level for noise within the site at
certain specified points agreed by the Local Planning Authority
shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the LPA before details
of any of the matters reserved are submitted. The layout,
orientation and design of the buildings shall be such as to provide
sound insulation/attenuation against generated noise including
external Public Address System within certain spedfled tolerances
of those levels identified in the base level noise survey to the
satisfaction of the Borough Council’s Environmental Health
Reason: to avoid noise disturbance to residents in the
21. The reserved matters submission(s) shall include measures for
the mitigation of additional traffic noise as measured at
geographical points on the boundaries of existing residential
properties and to levels to be agreed by the LPA.
Reason: to avoid noise disturbance to residents in the
22. The reserved matters submission(s) shall, where appropriate,
include details of proposed hours of operation for the respective
uses, which shall be restricted to the approved hours.
Reason: to avoid noise disturbance to residents in the
23. No deliveries or collections shall be made to or from the
retail, leisure and petrol sales buildings erected in pursuance of
this permission between the hours of 1930 and 0700 hours on Mondays
to Saturdays and there shall be no deliveries/collections at any
time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
Reason: to preserve the amenities of local residents.
24. The reserved matters submission(s) shall include schemes for
the effective control of cooking smells and suppression of any
noise producing equipment shall be submitted to and approved by the
LPA and the schemes shall be implemented before the development
hereby permitted is brought into use.
Reason: to safeguard the amenities of occupiers of adjoining
25. The reserved matters submission(s) shall include schemes for
the storage and disposal of refuse and the facilities approved
shall be made available, prior to the commencement of use of the
individual buildings to which they relate.
Reason: to ensure a satisfactory form of development.
26. There shall be no open storage of materials within the
Reason: in the interests of the amenities of the area and to
protect the amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential
27. The reserved matters submission(s) shall include provision of
lavatories available for public use.
Reason: for the convenience of members of the public in the
28. That part of the site identified in the reserved matters
submission as a petrol filling station shall only be used for the
sale of motor vehicle fuels and ancillary goods and not for the
sale display or repair of motor vehicles.
Reason: Use of the site for car sales and repairs would be
inappropriate in view of the likely location of the petrol filling
station in a prominent position alongside the new ring road.
29. All surface water drainage shall be passed through an oil
interceptor designed and constructed in accordance with BS8301:
1985 and of a capacity compatible with the site being drained prior
to being discharged into any watercourse surface water sewer or
soakaway system. Roof water should not be passed through the
Reason: to minimise the risk of pollution to rivers and
30. No development shall take place until full details of both hard
and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the LPA and these works shall be Carried out as
approved. These details shall include proposed finished levels or
contours, means of enclosure, car parking layouts, other vehicle
and pedestrian access and circulation areas, hard surfacing
materials, minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play
equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting, etc.),
proposed and existing functional services above and below ground
(e.g. drainage power, communications cables, Pipelines, etc.
indicating lines, manholes, supports etc.) and retained historic
landscape features and proposals for restoration, where
Reason: in order to provide a satisfactory setting for the
31. Soft landscape works shall include planting plans, written
specifications (including cultivation and other operations
associated with plant and grass establishment), scheduled of
plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities
where appropriate and an implementation programme.
Reason: in order to provide a satisfactory setting for the
32. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried
out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in
accordance with the programme agreed with the LPA.
Reason: in order to provide a satisfactory setting for the
33. A landscape management plan, including long term design
objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules
for all landscape areas, other than small, privately owned,
domestic gardens, shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA
prior to the occupation of the development or any phase of the
development, whichever is the sooner, for its permitted use. The
landscape management plan shall be carried out as approved.
Reason: to secure the future maintenance of the landscape
34. No development shall take place until a schedule of landscape
maintenance for a minimum4 period of 7 years from the date of first
occupation of the building(s) has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the LPA. The schedule shall include details of the
arrangements for its implementation. Development shall be carried
out in accordance with the approved schedule.
Reason: to secure the future maintenance of the landscape
35. The reserved matters submission(s) shall include specifications
for the retention of and protection of existing trees on the site,
where appropriate. No trees on the site shall be felled prior to
the approval of the reserved matters, including such
Reason: co ensure the retention of trees on site which make a
contribution to the appearance of the area.
36. The reserved matters submission(s) shall include a landmark
structure” to provide visual stop to the extended Jessop
Reason: Such a structure is required to complete the concept
initiated by the Jessop Avenue “boulevard”.
37. The retail building shall be designed and constructed such as
to provide an attractive frontage on each side, subject to its
location within the site.
Reason: to ensure a satisfactory relationship with its surroundings
and to the access routes into the site.
38. Notwithstanding the proposal to remove the former railway
embankment where it crosses we site and to replace it with a new
elevated pedestrian and cycle link, the embankment shall be
retained in its entirety except where works are required to allow
for the construction of the new road. The works shall be designed
such as to minimise intervention into the existing
Reason: to preserve the integrity of the embankment, which is
regarded as a valuable wildlife, amenity, recreational and
1. The Council will require a high standard of design for all
street furniture to be incorporated into the scheme, including
signs and advertisements.
2. The Council regards the provision of substantial water features
as desirable landscape elements, to provide visual interest and
3. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the likelihood that
bats are using the site. All bat species are protected under the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and advice should be obtained
from English Nature (tel. 01531 638500).
4. The reserved matters submission(s) should provide for
substantial separation between the car park adjacent to the retail
store and the existing houses in Great Western Road, to avoid
nuisance to the occupiers of those properties.
S106 OBLIGATIONS: HEADS OF TERMS
1. Provision of an element of Public Art, in pursuance of Council
2. Management of the car park to provide for use both by
Waitrose/John Lewis customers and the general public.
3. Allocation of construction vehicle access routes.
4. Provision of or contributions towards off-site highway
- consequential road closures
- traffic management measures, including traffic calming
- making-up of Jessop Avenue carriageway
- junction improvements at Tewkesbury Road/High Street and other
affected pails of the highway network
- residents’ parking schemes
- traffic calming and pedestrian crossing facilities in St
George’s Place and New Street
- improvements to Royal Well Place
- direction signs
- pedestrian crossing facilities in St Georges Road
- alterations to existing signals at Gloucester Road/St
George’s Road junction and St -George’s Road/Bayshill
5. Provision of payments for maintenance of public open
6. Contributions towards repair of the Honeybourne Line
At least two S106 obligations will be required because the County
Council will be party to the highway matters.
Cheltenham Borough Council Environment Directorate
PO Box 12
for the attention of Ian Crohill
Mr D C I Jones 5616
DCIJIGF 27th May 1997
Planning Application CB21841/00 Redevelopment of St James Station
Site Conservation Area sent CBC 311/00 Removal of Honeybourne
I write in response to the above and understand that these
applications are to determine only the and -use principles for the
St James station site. However, the supporting documents include
details of a new road with a retail store etc., together with a
traffic impact assessment prepared by Ove Arup and I felt that it
would be appropriate and helpful to you if I also commented upon
the transportation implications arising from the indicative
proposals. This r, therefore, reprises the main issues discussed
between Richard Wigginton and Clifford's comments made in earlier
meetings and correspondence, associated with access by public
transport to the parking, the impact on the Honeybourne line and
the opportunities to use the site as "brown field”
Ove Arup assessment describes the traffic impact of a food/non-food
retail use and I will comment on that report and will provide a
more detailed response in due course. My principal reaction is that
the TIA should have included a detailed appraisal of modal split
for journeys to Site and an indication of how these would be
accommodated on the highway, public transport and cycle/pedestrian
I have also briefly considered the site layout plans and whilst
recognising that these were submitted for illustrative purposes I
would comment that I am concerned by the lack of attention to
public transport, cycling and walking access to and within the
You will recall the County Council’s concerns about
large-scale retail development. At its meeting on the 24 June 1996
the Environment Committee resolutions included -the importance of
incorporating a significantly higher proportion of housing
development and the need to consider an element of employment land
provision; the importance of optimising the use of vacant and
redeveloped sites within the borough for housing and
I believe you are pursuing the question of housing provision with
the developer (and I note that the traffic impact assessment
includes a small number in its assumptions). Mr Ride’s letter
of the 21 April 1997 indicated that a three-way land swap might be
possible and I would be grateful for an update on the
Public Transport access to the site
Clearly, the need to plan for good public transport links to the
site is essential, whatever the final land use. The Arup report
confirms that the adjacent roads already carry a number of frequent
bus services and no doubt detailed proposals will include the
specific arrangements for bus and passenger accessibility. lam also
grateful for Mr Ride’s assurance that the People Mover will
be ready to service the development on the latter’s
completion. This provision should be secure within the planning
The application includes the construction of 957 parking spaces.
This raises questions not only regarding charging regimes and who
might benefit from concessions but also sustainability issues. Ove
Arup’s analysis of parking demand demonstrates that the
Saturday peak is short lived and there is an opportunity to reduce
substantially the number of spaces. A commuted sum should be
secured to support other modes of transport (i.e. conventional
public transport the People Mover and the provision of cycle
Redevelopment of the Honeybourne line
Now, the Honeybourne line already forms part of the local cycle
network and other lengths North of Cheltenham may be converted to
become a section of a national route between Bristol and Stratford.
Richard Wigginton has also written to Mr Ride to confirm that the
Environment Committee has resolved that development of the St.
James station site must not the integrity of the Honeybourne
railway line route for passenger transport purposes. The current
application seeks to remove the embankment, replacing it with a
narrower, elevated away presumably intended to share with a
single-track light rail system on a new alignment. tare options
available that wake the diversion unnecessary and I consider it
essential that Mouchel report is made available and that
long-sections are provided of the route between Market Street and
St George’s Road and over the link road to clarify how a LRT
route would he established.
Ove Arup traffic impact assessment
The preliminary assessment undertaken for the John Lewis
Partnership highlights a number of matters that require further
investigation. I have asked Halcrow to provide advice on the local
possible traffic generations, to comment on Arup’s traffic
distribution assumptions, to identify junctions and routes not
specifically included in the assessment that might become
significantly busier. Their initial reaction is that the forecasts
lie towards the bottom end of the projected traffic generation.
Halcrow’s full response will be with me during next
I was disappointed to note that the work took a narrow view of the
impact area of the development and did not test the affects of
traffic redistribution on the ring road at Boots
Corner. Ove Arup has produced a supplementary “working
paper” that investigates the flow changes on the proposed
link road following the closure of Royal Well Place. The traffic
generated by the development should reflect the addition of the
petrol filling station and the bed retail floor area described in
the planning application.
I will write again with detailed observations on the assessment
when the Halcrow report is to
The Successful application will require a comprehensive development
agreement. The Highway authority will seek contributions to
off-site works to include a contribution to the NRR appropriate
measures to encourage public transport, pedestrian and cycle
travel. Problems concerning the People Mover should also be
Whilst the new Highways Agency Agreement describes the
responsibilities for drafting1 implementation I suggest that a
tripartite agreement would be the most satisfactory
forward for all parties in this instance and that the Heads of such
an agreement should be available to your committee before outline
consent is granted. If you feel that an early meeting with
developers would be helpful we will of course be pleased to
I understand that Neville has written separately about joint Member
involvement in advance of committee consideration.
D C I Jones
Projects & traffic Manager
cc M G Smith (Cheltenham Borough Council)
P.S. I understand that the Department of the Environment have
‘called-in’ the application - How will this affect your
Cheltenham Borough Council
For the Attention of Ian Crohill
Mr. D.C. I. Jones 5616
DCIJ/JP/L1240 20 June 1997
Planning Application CB 2184/00 Redevelopment of St. James Station
Site Conservation Area Consent CRC 3t1/00 Removal of Honeybourne
Further to my letter of 27 May 1997 I would like to comment in more
detail on the transportation implications of the above proposals.
As noted in earlier correspondence, the County Council is
particularly concerned that redevelopment of the St. James Station
site is undertaken in a sustainable manner and we at the County are
not convinced that the proposed mix of land-use supports that
principle. However, you have mentioned that the Borough Council is
in negotiation with others regarding housing provision, perhaps
through a land-swap agreement and I would be grateful for an update
on progress on this as requested earlier.
Protection of the Honeybourne Line
Thank you for forwarding the Mouchel report. My reading of it is
that their proposed Solution for a future LRT route is to bring it
down to ground level (or a metre above the existing proposed ground
level to improve gradients) with removal of the embankment between
St: George’s Road and St. Paul’s Road. This would, as
the report makes clear, require five signal-controlled road
crossings through which of necessity the Light Rail Vehicle would
require priority. This would, in my view, create considerable
congestion on these roads, and I am particularly concerned by the
close proximity of the LRT route with the High Street/ Gloucester
Road junction. I am not convinced that such an arrangement could be
made to work satisfactorily.
A further option outlined in the report is to bring the LRT down to
ground level to meet the proposed new road and then back up to high
level again. The report makes dear that this would preclude any
stopping point except adjacent to St. George’s Road. The
report supports my view that an at grade crossing of the new road
immediately adjacent to the proposed roundabout is unsatisfactory,
and the only possibility for an at grade crossing would be to
integrate it into a signal-controlled T-junction arrangement for
the road a The report confirms that to remove the embankment and
replace it with a high level structure would be extremely
expensive, particularly for a skewed structure on the route as the
proposed cycleway. I would expect the site developer to contribute
substantially to that cost A structure on the existing line of the
embankment would be practical (albeit with the high cost
implication) but would require a signal-controlled Tjunction, and a
modified route for the access road from St. George’s
In order to keep options open for use of the Floneybourne line
route, my preference is the developers to consider a solution which
leaves the embankment in situ, acknowled that any new bridge would
have a lower than standard headroom (not a significant problem in
my view). As a result, the access road from St. George’s Road
needs to be relocated slightly.
I note that the ifiustrative plans submitted with the planning
application do not provide a spur into the development and beyond
to the town centre, which would be a desirable
element of a strategic LRT proposal. Whilst the Mouchel report
described an alternative route via Market Street, that arrangement
would only be possible from low level.
I note the report’s comments about the structural condition
of the embankment. No slippage has occurred in the five years since
the previous inspection and that monitoring only is required while
it remains a cycleway. Should LRT be introduced the report clear
that stabilisation techniques would be used, w hich would not
necessarily be high C and would be at the expense of the promoter
of the public transport system.
Finally, any structure necessary in a revised layout must
accommodate both LRT and a cycle track.
The Ove Arup Traffic Impact Assessment
Further to my letter of 27 May, I repeat my concern that the TIA
does not address the• of modal split for journeys to the site,
or recognise the increasing importance of placing more focus on
this aspect in line with emerging policy requirements.
The restriction of traffic at Boots Corner has been a key element
of Cheltenham’s trans policy for many years. Testing of this
proposal on the traffic model revealed a substan switch of traffic
to alternative routes such as Gloucester Road, Ambrose Street and
He Road, under congested conditions, such that a significant shift
in journeys from car to public transport, cycling and walking needs
to be considered as a part of the strategy.
It was disappointing, therefore, that the proposed restrictions at
Boots Corner were only treated as an afterthought in the Traffic
Impact Assessment (TIA) and not as part of the assumption. This
aspect should be revisited as a matter of urgency.
As you know, the TIA did not include the petrol filling station or
the larger retail store proposed in the planning application and it
is my view that the development could generate more than the 760
vph estimated by Ove Amp. The store’s location also suggests
that there could be a smaller proportion of pass-by journeys. This
could translate to a
figure at the low end of the range of 800 vph (CF Arup’s 530
vph). There are also possible variations of traffic distribution
which could indicate a more significant impact on junctions not
identified in the TIA, for example on the NRR, as far afield as
Hewlett Road. Also the Stone Lane and Arle Road junctions, with
Gloucester Road should receive specific attention. In this context
I should point out that the County Council sees itself under no
obligation to improve junction capacity at Tewkesbury Road/High
Street or elsewhere in order to facilitate the St. James
development, which is alluded to in the Arup report. Urban traffic
control operation of these signals is giving a satisfactory
performance under current conditions.
Given the possibilities that, on a traditional car-born basis, the
traffic generation could be r higher than the Arup forecast, and
that the development should aim to offer sustainable travel for the
future, firm proposals for improving access to public transport are
essential. Car usage should also be discouraged by decreasing the
available parking spaces, which are currently aimed at providing
for the maximum peak flow. It is strongly recommended that the
parking allocation is reduced to a level which would accommodate a
more “normal” demand and therefore better utilisation,
and encourage a real increase in the use of alternative means of
access to the site.
I would like to see an indicative layout which shows how buses and
the People Mover will penetrate the site. There are opportunities
to divert services and the developer should be encouraged to reach
an agreement with the bus operators. Explicit cycle and pedestrian
links to the existing networks are also required.
I understand that when developments of this size and location are
proposed they are Usually supported by an Environmental Assessment.
Has such a report been prepared or IS it intended that one should
I have not had a response to my request for a meeting with the
developers and yourselves, but believe that this is an essential
step on the path to a negotiated agreement on highway and transport
I View of my concerns (expressed in my letter of 27 May and above)
which have been the Subject of consultation with relevant members,
I believe that if your Council is minded to grant consent to this
outline application, it should be with a clear condition which
makes that consent subject to agreement between the highway
authority and the developing highway and transport requirements and
funding, which should aim at a significant the mode of travel and
should inter-alia allow for:
- provision of on site roads/junctions minimising impact on the
existing line of the Honeybourne Line;
- a reduced parking provision;
- penetration/access into the site for public transport modes
(including People Mover);
- provision of strong cycle/pedestrian routes to and within the
- contributions to off site highway/traffic management works.
Please would you place both this letter and that of 27 May before
your Planning COIDIIdt when it considers this application.
Projects & Traffic Manager