By Carmelo Garcia – Local Democracy Reporter
Controversial plans for a new 8,800-person ‘dormitory town’ on the outskirts of Cheltenham have cleared the first hurdle.
The Elms Park development near junction 10 of the M5, which is expected to be developed in phases over 20 years, was considered by Tewkesbury Borough planners this morning.
The 4,115-home Elms Park development off the A4019 Tewkesbury Road near Uckington is also due to be considered by Cheltenham Borough Council this afternoon.
There has been strong opposition to the outline proposals with more than 100 people objecting and seven nearby villages against the scheme.
There are fears the Elms Park development will have a “disastrous effect” and will lead to a huge increase in traffic and area pollution as well as overwhelming health services and other services.
Objectors also raised concerns about the design and appearance of the housing developments, road safety, traffic and parking concerns as well as pollution, flooding risk, overlooking and that the scheme conflicts with planning policies.
And Gloucestershire police and crime commissioner Chris Nelson said the constabulary is considering legal action over the lack of agreed funding for a new £1.5m police station on the site.
But the Elms Park Consortium, which is led by housebuilders Bloor Homes and Permission, say the £2.5 billion scheme will provide 1,000 affordable homes and up to 4,000 jobs will be created, including 30 apprenticeships per year during construction.
A modern 10-hectare business park will also be built. And they anticipate that Elms Park will generate up to £300 million gross value added per year for the local economy.
The site lies outside the green belt and falls entirely within an area of land allocated for development in Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury’s joint planning strategy.
Cheltenham Civic Society is among those who have objected to the proposals which have been in gestation since 2016.
They say much of the scheme is a “juggernaut” that has been evolving away from the public eye with few opportunities for the public to help shape and improve the scheme.
Its chairman Andrew Booton described the Elms Park proposal as a “massive dormitory satellite of Cheltenham” which is far too focused on its links with the M5 than its links with the town.
Council officers recommended approving the scheme and it was considered by Tewkesbury Borough Council on May 29.
Peter Badham, chairman of Uckington Parish Council, spoke against the proposals at the meeting.
He acknowledged the development falls within a strategically allocated site but said it was “difficult to be convinced the benefits would outweigh its impact”.
He said the proposals would have an unacceptable landscape impact and that it could potentially become an “environmental disaster”.
“The landscape from the site includes the Cotswold escarpment to the east, the Malvern Hills to the west and Breedon Hill to the north, none of which is impeded by Gallagher retail park, Kingsditch trading estate or Tewkesbury Road. It is therefore considered the proposal as an unacceptable landscape impact.
“The Perry orchard should be retained in its entirety, acknowledging that old trees are a sanctuary for their own ecosystems.
“There is clear evidence of important archaeology dating back to Roman and earlier periods, and this aspect would need to be handled with abundant care.
“Loss of any essential minerals or rare earths would be extremely regrettable, as indeed with the loss of best and those best and most versatile land. There are potential impacts, mainly as to noise and lighting from the proposed transport
“The foul drainage position is a major concern, as it is confirmed that there is insufficient capacity, and there does not seem to be any process in place to address this and the implications for drainage, low risk and water quality.
“It’s difficult to accept the conclusion of the report that there are no adverse impacts. In summary, there is potential for an environmental disaster.”
Cllr Badham also noted the lack of recent consultation and said it had been difficult for residents to keep abreast of the updates with the application. He said the parish council’s position remained that the application should be refused.
Rob White, the agent for the applicant, said the planning committee meeting was a landmark and 20 years in the making.
He said the principle of development at Elms Park is consistent with council’s policies and called on the committee to approve the plans.
“Elms Park represents a £2.5 billion investment in the area,” he said. “It will contribute £300 million a year into the sub-regional economy, creating and supporting over 8,000 new jobs with 30 apprenticeships a year during construction over 20 years.
“Over 4,000 new homes will be built, providing for a new community of around 9,000 residents, many of whom will already be living in the area.”
He said 35 per cent of the new homes will be affordable and will include at least 200 bungalows or ground floor maisonettes, along with retirement and extra care accommodation.
“Approximately £50 million will be spent providing new schools, including a secondary school and two primary schools on site.
“Approximately £25 million pounds will be spent on community infrastructure, including a GP healthcare centre, neighborhoods and local community centres delivered on site.
“A sports hub containing new facilities for cricket, football, tennis, and an all-weather 3G pitch will be provided on site along with significant contributions to local rugby and hockey clubs. A transport hub, including a 350 space park and ride interchange with new bus services and electric vehicle charging stations, tens of kilometers of new on-site and off-site cycleways and footpaths.
“Both Bloor Homes and Persimmon Homes are recognised as five-star house builders, ensuring build quality throughout their developments. They are committed to bringing forward Elms Park as a well-designed, sustainable and healthy place where the new community can thrive.”
During the meeting Councillor Mary Jordan (LD, Churchdown St John) asked about the drainage improvements needed at the site. “It might require new networks and treatment works. We are talking about sewage pumping stations and things like that. Where would they be allocated if required?”
Officers said Severn Trent Water are well aware of the size of the development and that applicants have been talking to them for years “about an appropriate They said the final details are not agreed yet and they don’t know where the pumping station will be.
The substantial drainage infrastructure will be required at the site, they said and details would come as the phases are approved. Cllr Matt Dimond-Brown (G, Tewkesbury South) asked what would happen if improvements of junction 10 of the M5 did not go ahead.
Officers said the planning conditions would restrict house building without the improvements. They said the developers could build out of the limit if they wanted to but they suspect there would be another application from the applicants if junction 10 “didn’t happen”.
Cllr Dimond-Brown also said there were noise issues around Tewkesbury Road and odour problems to the north of the site due to the proximity to the Wingmoor Farm landfill site. He asked if they could ensure affordable houses were not overrepresented in those areas.
Officers said the affordable homes would need to be spread evenly across the site but there will be more density of development near the Tewkesbury Road. “To the north of the site it is going to be more bungalows and less dense development,” case officer Paul Instone said.
He assured the committee officers will be aware of the issue and make sure it is acceptable. Councillor Ian Yates (LD, Churchdown Brookfield with Hucclecote) proposed accepting the officer’s recommendation; this was seconded by Cllr Jordan.
She said the principle of development has already been established and the scheme as a very “thoughtful development”. “It’s much better than a lot of developments that come before us,” she said. And Cllr Yates said he came to the conclusion that it is the largest decision that has come before the committee while he has been a member.
“This has weighed quite heavily on my mind,” he said. “It is a complex decision that comes down to a simple yes or no. There are many other factors we’ve had to consider”
He compared the development with his own village of Churchdown and its highway constraints.
“The plans for Elms Park are going to address that and it is going to be very much stronger because of those things,” he said. “I can see no reason for refusing to endorse the officers recommendation”, he said
Chairman Sarah Hands (LD, Innsworth) said this development is the biggest thing they have had to make a decision on. And Cllr Dimond-Brown echoed those comments and said “a lot of heavy lifting” would still need to be done around the detail of the plans.
He said he was unsure about supporting the plans or not and was slightly concerned about delegating this to officers. “I’m just worried we are not ventilating enough through the democratic process,” he said.
He asked if there was a way for elected members to continue to be involved in the delegated matters work which will happen over the next few years. Officers said as things currently stand reserved matters applications could be called in to the planning committee.
However, the government could change how planning committees work in the future and such applications would not be decided by councillors. Councillors voted by five in favour to one against to delegate authority officers to grant permission subject to conditions.