Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Jan Foster.

Councillors Glenn Andrews and Barbara Clark declared an interest in item 6a as trustees of the Cheltenham Trust ­and confirmed that they would excuse themselves from the meeting during the item.

The following Councillors attended all sites during Planning View:

-       Cllr Adrian Bamford

-       Cllr Garth Barnes

-       Cllr Barbara Clark

-       Cllr Tony Oliver

-       Cllr Steve Steinhardt

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 21^st August 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on 21 August 2025 were approved and signed as a correct record.

There were two public questions, which were taken as read along with the response.

1.

Question from Richard Lawler to Chris Gomm (Head of Planning) and Chair of Planning – Councillor Garth Barnes

One of the recurring themes raised at the Planning Committee, particularly by objectors, is concern about the scale and size of proposed developments in relation to nearby buildings. I recall one meeting where even the planning officer was unable to confirm the height of the building under consideration.

At present, many of the submitted drawings are marked “not to scale,” and often the space between buildings is not shown accurately. This makes it very difficult for residents to properly judge the impact.

Will the council consider requiring applicants to provide plans on a standardised grid (for example, 1 square = 1 metre), particularly for street scene views? This would allow residents to clearly gauge the width and height of proposed buildings as well as the distances between them.

Response from Chris Gomm (Head of Planning) and Chair of Planning – Councillor Garth Barnes

Thank you for your feedback. The plans and drawings submitted as part of a planning application must be drawn to an identified scale and must also show the direction of north (if applicable); this is a legal requirement of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. Our Planning and Validation Officer ensures that this, and other mandatory validation requirements, are met before validating any application.

Plans and drawings which are labelled as ‘not to scale’ must nevertheless be drawn to scale; the applicant cannot ‘opt out’ of this legal requirement. A drawing drawn to scale can be accurately measured using a scale-rule or, if in an electronic format, can be measured using the software available on our public access website.

Supplementary Question

Thank you for clarifying that all drawings are required to be to scale. I note your point that residents can use scale rule or the measuring tools built into the council’s online planning portal. However, the fact that many drawings are also stamped with ‘Not to scale’ creates confusion and most residents are not familiar with scale rules or digital measurement tools. Will the council therefore consider requiring applicants to provide street scene elevations with clearly labelled dimensions, or a simple meter grid so that residents can easily understand the height and spacing of proposed buildings without needing specialist knowledge or software?

Response from the Chair

Thank you for this interesting question which is clearly of concern to the public. I will ask officers to consider the suggestion and we will provide a written response.

2.

Question from Councillor David Willingham, Ward Member for St. Peters, to Chris Gomm (Head of Planning) and Chair of Planning – Councillor Garth Barnes

In January 2024, Planning Committee approved planning application 21/02832/OUT for Lansdown Industrial Estate; however, at the time of submitting this question, over 19 months after that committee meeting, the decision notice for this application has still not been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Listed Building Consent Documents

Councillors Andrew and Clark left the meeting.

The Head of Planning introduced the report as published.

In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that:

·         Officers understand that work will be undertaken very soon once the application is determined. They are not aware of how long the work is expected to take but will clarify with Councillor Steinhardt after the meeting.

The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to grant the application.

For: 8

Against: 0

Abstain: 0

Voted UNANIMOUSLY to grant the application.

Councillors Andrew and Clark rejoined the meeting.

Planning Application Documents

The Planning Officer introduced the report as published.

There were two public speakers on the item: an objector, and the ward member.

The objector addressed the Committee and made the following points:

·         The proposed development at 41 Hales Close will significantly and negatively impact the safety, character and quality of life for residents on the street.

·         The street consists of family homes and is a close-knit community who are concerned that this development may be intended for rental use, as the new owner is understood to be a builder. There is significant concern this will disrupt the established family character and safety of the street and undermine the community spirit that is valued so highly.

·         Residents have experienced anti-social and violent behaviour linked to previous short term rentals on the street which has raised fears about potential future disruption. It would be a shameto see the close-knit community undermined by a development not aligned with existing family homes.

·         It will also have a crucial impact on light, privacy and the overall quality of life of neighbouring properties. Residents at 9 Fox Grove, and 39, 43 and 45 Hales Close have all expressed strong opposition due to concerns about significant loss of light and privacy. The size of the proposed double storey rear extension will create a repressive feeling of enclosure, particularly affecting 43 Hales Close which directly adjoins it. As a resident with a south facing garden and rooms benefitting from natural light the increased height of the extension and potential for overlooking windows will severely diminish enjoyment of both indoor and outdoor spaces and erode the sense of openness.

·         The inclusion of at least three bathrooms upstairs, two of which will be near a thin 1960s built bedroom wall, raises severe concerns about increased noise. Music can already be heard through these walls and additional bathrooms will undoubtedly further intensify disturbance, impacting quality of life.

·         Parking and safety is a critical issue and is already a significant problem on the street, exacerbated by the presence of a special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) school. During peak times it is hard to get down the street with residents sometimes needing to leave houses before or after drop off times. The current situation already forces wheelchair and pram users to go onto the road due to vehicles parking on dropped kerbs. Whilst the development plans look good on paper, showing new parking spaces, there are genuine concerns that these will not be able to accommodate multiple vehicles and lead to more cars parking on an already congested street.

·         The aesthetics and character of the street are at stake. Currently the semi-detached houses are built in a staggered position and share a uniform design. The proposed extension does not match the established character and will take the development out of alignment of neighbouring houses. Retaining the sympathetic design and existing character of this end of the street is important to residents and one of the primary reasons people have chosen to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The appeal updates were noted.

There were none.