Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Tony Oliver and Suzanne Williams.

The Chair noted that the members of the committee were up for re-election and took a moment to thank the whole of the committee for the commitment and hard work they have put in over the years. They have had some very hard, difficult decision to make and have considered very significant applications, such as the Cyber Park and the Junction 10 area. He thanked them for how they had dealt with these matters in the past and expressed his hope that their example will continue. In particular he thanked his Vice Chair, Councillor Frank Allen, for his invaluable and incisive contributions to the committee, and his diligence. He offered him his deepest thanks for all the work he has done and the support he had given as Vice Chair, and wished him luck in his next venture.

Councillor Simon Wheeler declared that he has been on a working group for the Neighbourhood Plan centred around the development in item 8. He noted that a member of the working group had independently submitted an objection, but that he himself was not pre-determined on the application.

The following Councillors attended all sites during Planning View:

-       TBC

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 19^th March 2026.

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 March 2026 were approved and signed as a correct record.

There were none.

Planning application documents

The Head of Planning introduced the report as published.

There was one public speakers on the item: the applicant’s representative.

The applicant’s representative addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       The scheme forms part of the West Cheltenham strategic allocation and it follows on from two already approved schemes. Together they demonstrate real progress in delivering this important allocation, something that the council deserves great credit for particularly in the current economic and political climate.

-       This is a really important enabling scheme. While the housing proposed is needed in its own right, it also plays a key role in unlocking the wider employment and infrastructure ambitions for Golden Valley.

-       The principle of development is largely established through the allocation. What is before the committee is precisely what policy anticipates, a coordinated and sustainable urban extension, not piecemeal development. It comes forward as part of a comprehensive master plan for the whole allocation aligned with a clear infrastructure delivery strategy.

-       It integrates effectively with the adjoining parcels, ensuring that growth is planned, coherent, and properly supported. It also provides land for a primary school and sports pitches, alongside contributions to education, and transport, including improvements to junction 10, new bus services, and strong walking and cycling links. These aren't just aspirations. They are embedded and secured by the proposal.

-       There is a clear and pressing need for housing and this scheme will deliver a significant number of new homes including 31% affordable housing with a mix that responds to identified local needs. This is a significant public benefit of the scheme.

-       A detailed design code will be secured as part of the application to give Members confidence about the quality of development that will be delivered. It is not leaving this to be resolved later.

-       Environmentally, the proposal performs well. It delivers biodiversity net gains, extensive green infrastructure, and appropriate mitigation. Natural England has confirmed there will be no adverse effects on protected sites.

-       Importantly there are no objections from statutory consultees on highways, drainage, ecology, or landscape subject to the recommended conditions within the report.

-       In planning terms, this is a sustainable development. It delivers homes, infrastructure, and environmental enhancements while supporting the wider vision for Golden Valley. Officers are clear in their recommendation. The proposal accords with the development plan, and where the policies are out of date, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies.

In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that:

-       The access to the application site from Hope Orchard Lane will be pedestrian and cycle only with no access by vehicular traffic. In the parameters plan it is identified as the indicative pedestrian access position. The existing properties in Hope Orchard will still be accessible by car, but there will not be access to the application site from this route by car.

-       As with any housing development constructed on a field that has a public right of way through it, the public right  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Planning Application documents

The Interim Development Management Manager introduced the report as published.

There was one public speakers on the item: the applicant’s representative.

The applicant’s representative addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       Attended the committee last year to present the outline application for the southern parcel. A year later back with the first detailed phase, which delivers the innovation centre and first of the mobility hubs for the southern parcel. Together they will kickstart the Golden Valley and help position Cheltenham at the forefront of cyber security, national security and advanced technology.

-       Crucially this is not a speculative development, there is clear demand from organisations in the sector for high-quality, flexible workspace. The scheme is designed to meet that demand from day one.

-       The principal of development has already been established, so the application before the committee is about the detail and whether this phase lives up to the ambitions that they supported at the outline stage. In the applicant’s and officers’ views, it does. It is a high-quality scheme that follows the approved design code, respects the parameter plans, and sets a strong benchmark for future phases.

-       It is more than just an office building, it is designed as a focal point for collaboration, investment, and innovation. The investment will create jobs both on site and across the wider supply chain, including high value roles that will strengthen Cheltenham’s place in the UK’s national security and technology economy.

-       This is about long-term opportunities, supporting skills development, partnerships with education providers, and creating opportunities for local people.

-       It also plays an important role by enabling sustainable travel, reducing reliance on cars and helping to unlock future phases.

-       The scheme responds well to its setting with strong landscaping, retention of key trees, meaningful public green space and a commitment to 10% biodiversity net gain.

-       Sustainability is also embedded throughout with efficient buildings, renewable energy technologies and a clear ambition towards net zero.

-       There are no objections from statutory consultees and no unacceptable impacts on neighbouring residents have been identified. Importantly, the site will also become publicly accessible for the first time.

-       Taken as a whole, this is more than just a first phase. It delivers jobs, skills, investment, and long-term economic resilience. It's high quality, policy compliant, and officers have recommended approval.

In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that:

-       The open spaces will be publicly accessible, not just for users of the buildings.

-       It is not known whether the event spaces will be available for community use, but it is intended that commercial spaces will be accessible to the public.

-       There have been discussions with the bus services, and the transport routes were agreed at the outline stage. So, this is not included as part of the current application. There will be bus gates and a bus stop is proposed on Fiddler’s Green Lane. The highway authority has reviewed the transport detail and is satisfied that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Planning application documents

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report as published.

There were three public speakers on the item: an objector, the applicant’s representative, and the Ward Member.

The objector addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       Speaking on behalf of the Civic Society and St. Philip and St. James Residence Association. He is a qualified planner (now retired) and a fellow of the Landscape Institute.

-       He has lived in or near Cheltenham for 45 years, most of the time within a short walking distance of The Park. He walks in it at least once a week and, like many residents, he is grateful for the generous way in which the University has made this beautiful place available for all to enjoy.

-       Council officers have worked hard with the developers to secure significant improvements in the plans for the development of this site since they were first published. So, he hesitated to maintain the initial objections, especially as they welcome the proposed conversion of Broadlands Lodge and Farmery Lodge. However, there are still issues of critical importance and the plans still do not meet the legal duty towards the conservation area.

-       There are three main concerns that should encourage Members to reject these plans - failure to protect and enhance the conservation area, loss of public access, and the precedent that approval of this scheme could set.

-       Any new buildings here should respect the specific guidance in the council's Park character area appraisal. They should also show how they protect and enhance the conservation area as required by law in section 72 of the 1990 Planning Act. The plans submitted do not do that, nor does the officer's report show how this new development will safeguard and enrich the character of the conservation area. The new buildings introduce alien features that respond neither to the fine regency buildings around The Park, nor to the character of the two Victorian buildings that are to be retained as part of the scheme. They are not asking for reproduction Regency or Victorian villas, but for contemporary structures that relate well to them. Flat roofs, projecting first floors and harsh rectangular shapes are not characteristic of this part of town. These highly visible buildings located in one of the most sensitive sites in Cheltenham could have been designed for anywhere. They do not do the job required by law. They do not protect and still less enhance the character of this part of the conservation area.

-       Until the site was sold by the University early last year, the public could walk across it. There was no fence to the road, and many people used the gap between the Farmery and Broadlands as a way into and out of The Park. There is even a traffic island facing the opening that made it safe to cross the road there. What the sale of this site and the scheme have done is to destroy what was a public asset. Surprised that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Planning application documents

The Planning Officer introduced the report as published.

There were no public speakers on the item.

In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that:

-       This item has come to the committee as the council owns the building.

-       The defences are at a lower ground level and will be used during weather related flash flooding.

-       Officers do not know whether the defences will be installed by building management or by residents.

The matter then went to Member debate where the following points were made:

-       Disappointing that this needs to come to committee, feel that property owners should be able to install flood defences without permission, even in conservation areas.

The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit.

For: 9

Against: 0

Abstain: 0

Voted UNANIMOUSLY for the officer recommendation to permit.

Planning application documents

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report as published.

There were three public speakers on the item: an objector, the applicant, and the Ward Member.

The objector addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       Lives at 9 Halland Road and as a consequence of correcting errors in the architect's original plans, they are not contesting the rear extension to the adjoining semi at 10 Halland Road.

-       With regard to the roof alterations, they are contesting the proposed roof conversion from hip to gable which alters the appearance of the whole building to a detrimental, lopsided effect. Which will affect them.

-       They are grateful to planners for giving the proposed dormer windows due consideration and accept their recommendations.

-       The planning report itself states and acknowledges that the development will result in an imbalanced building. It will lose symmetry.

-       The report describes the site sensitive position in the conservation area. Halland Road is a historic street in Cheltenham’s central conservation area and falls within the character area. Numbers 9 and 10 are currently identified as important buildings. The pair of semis are over 100 years old and have remained largely unaltered.

-       Both semis together were constructed with a hip roof for considered aesthetic reasons in the 1920s. The elegance and strength of the hip roof comes from all four sides sloping forward towards the walls like a pyramid. The symmetrical shape of a hip roof gives a balanced and cohesive appearance to the whole building and elegant architectural character. For the record, hip roofs are self-racing and more stable in high winds than a gable end. Putting a gable roof on one semi will destroy the beauty of the sloping pyramid form by creating a flat vertical side at one end making the building as a whole lopsided. Not what was intended.

-       The report states the works may not be considered to enhance the character of the conservation area. It describes them as neutral and says the changes will have negligible impact. The objector disputes this. How can a major change resulting in lopsidedness be neutral or negligible? It does not preserve the character of the building as it should.

-       They do not agree that the resulting imbalance to the building is “unlikely to be particularly visible from the street”. This doesn't inspire confidence, it reveals uncertainty. The imbalance certainly will be visible. Indeed, this part of the report directly acknowledges losing symmetry, which is contrary to planning guidelines.

-       According to the report, concerns were raised at the pre-planning stage over the change from hip to gable. These concerns were quashed because the western end of Halland Road is considered to be quite different. The objector strongly contests this subjective view. It is a very short road, so making a distinction between one end and the other is unconvincing. In fact, 9 and 10 Halland Road are part of a set of four similar buildings, all in keeping with each other on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

The appeal updates were noted.

There were none.