Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber - Municipal Offices. View directions

Contact: Judith Baker, Planning Committee Co-ordinator 

No. Item




Councillors Clucas and Sudbury.



Declarations of Interest


Councillor Fletcher:  personal – has organised events for the Chamber of Commerce (which has objected to the proposal).


Councillor Baker:   made a representation on the JCS some time ago, before becoming a councillor, but does not consider this a personal or prejudicial interest.


Councillor Coleman:  asked for advice – there is a very large number of representations, all of which are published with names removed.  Having lived in Cheltenham and specifically Leckhampton for many years, is bound to know some of the objectors – but how does he know if he does or not, and what should he do when considering whether or not he has a personal or prejudicial interest?


CL, in response:

-          as has been advised previously, where there is a close association with an objector, Members need to consider their position, but if unaware of any such association, he or she is not in a position to make this judgement.


CC:  is not aware, therefore has no declaration of interest to make.



Public Questions


There were none.


13/01605/OUT Land at Leckhampton, Shurdington Road pdf icon PDF 265 KB

Additional documents:



Application Number:



Land at Leckhampton, Shurdington Road, Cheltenham


Residential development of up to 650 dwellings; mixed use local centre of up to 1.94ha comprising a local convenience retail unit Class A1 Use (400sqm), additional retail unit Class A1 Use for a potential pharmacy (100sqm), Class D1 Use GP surgery (1,200sqm,) and up to 4,500sqm of additional floorspace to comprise one or more of the following uses, namely Class A Uses, Class B1 offices, Class C2 care home, and Class D1 Uses including a potential dentist practice, children’s nursery and/or cottage hospital; a primary school of up to 1.72ha; strategic open space including allotments; access roads, cycleways, footpaths, open space/landscaping and associated works; details of the principal means of access; with all other matters to be reserved.



Officer Recommendation:

Permit subject to a 106 Obligation

Committee Decision:


Letters of Rep:


Update Report:

Officer update; additional representations; letters from objectors’ planning consultant and traffic consultant


GB:  the committee is fully aware of the emotion generated and the elevated feelings arising from this application, from the many letters and emails demonstrating the strength of opposition and the crowded public gallery.  We are now at the point of making a decision and the level of apprehension is palpable.  Asks for an uninhibited debate – members of the public are requested not to applaud, cheer etc, and to allow Members to speak.  Much care and thought has gone into who should be allowed to speak publicly on this application, and therefore the public are requested to maintain a dignified silence when listening to the debate.  Speakers must be sure to stick to their allotted time slots.


[Five minutes allowed for Members to read blue updates.]


CH explained that this is an outline application, with all matters other than access reserved for the full application, including appearance, landscaping, lay-out and scale.  The applicant has provided a masterplan, parameter plans and illustrative lay-outs to elaborate on the indicative lay-out in terms of land use, housing density, access and movement, green infrastructure, public open space and phasing.  Under the pre-submission JCS, the application site forms part of the strategic allocation SA1, which allows for up to 1141 dwellings.  The principle is well-advanced and the role of Planning Committee today is not to consider that issue.  Members are required to consider the application before them on its merits and technical considerations.  There are national requirements for planning applications to be considered within specific time scales, which mean it is not possible to defer a decision on this scheme any further without the risk of an appeal.  The merits of the scheme, the development plan, the Local Plan, and the NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development should all be taken into account.


Extra officers have been invited to the meeting to assist Members in their decision-making:  Philip Stephenson (policy and technical matters), Wilf Tomaney (urban design, landscaping and lay-out issues), Paul Scott (air pollution), Sandra Donaldson (education), and Mark Power and Michael  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.


Any other items the Chairman determines urgent and requires a decision


There were none.