Agenda and minutes

There were none.

Councillors Wheeler and Oliver declared an interest in item 6b due to personal connections with the applicants and confirmed that they would withdraw from the meeting during this item.

The following Councillors attended all sites during Planning View:

-       Councillor Frank Allen

-       Councillor Adrian Bamford

-       Councillor Garth Barnes

-       Councillor Jan Foster

-       Councillor Tony Oliver

-       Councillor Steve Steinhardt

-       Councillor Simon Wheeler

Councillor Andrews declared that he had independently visited site 6b and 6c.

Councillor Clark declared that she had independently visited sites 6a, 6b, 6c and 6d.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 22 May 2025.

To approve the minutes of the Extraordinary meeting held on 29 May 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on 22 May were approved and signed as a correct record.

The following amendments were made to the minutes of the Extraordinary meeting held on 29 May, which were then approved and signed as a correct record:

-       Within the Member debate section:

o   “It proposes a huge number of services, including the provision of schools, GPs, the health centre, and dental suite. The community spaces were also praised. Often a lack of community is seen in the modern era, the play areas and sports facilities will be of huge benefit in this. It was positive that many of the services are included within the first phase of development, which will therefore be of beneficial to existing and as well as the developing communities.” Was changed to read: “It proposes a huge number of services, including the provision of schools, GP allocation, the health centre, and dental suite. The community spaces were also praised. Often a lack of community is seen in the modern era, the play areas and sports facilities which will of huge benefit in addressing this. It was positive that many of the services are included within the first phase of development, which will therefore be beneficial to existing communities, as well as the developing communities”.

o   “Concern was raised over traffic ultimately being the big sticking point, with lanes not adequate for the number of vehicles that can be expected to be seen and the uncertainty around the Junction 10 improvement works Government funding.” Was changed to read: “Concern was raised over traffic ultimately being the big sticking point, with lanes not adequate for the number of vehicles that can be expected to be seen and the uncertainty around the Junction 10 improvement works and Government funding.”

The amendments to the minutes of the Extraordinary meeting held on 29 May were approved by 9 votes in favour with 2 abstentions, and were then signed as a correct record.

One public question had been submitted.  As the questioner was not present in the chamber, the Chair did not read out the question. The question and written responses were taken as read and will be recorded in the minutes of the next meeting

1.    Question from Mr Richard Lawler to the Chair, Councillor Garth Barnes, and the Head of Planning, Chris Gomm

I have been reflecting on my recent experience with the planning portal, particularly in relation to the Folly application, and I’ve also received feedback from residents who felt let down by the system after submitting their comments. A common concern was the lack of notification when the application was scheduled for consideration by the Planning Committee.

In light of this, I’d like to suggest one simple change to improve public engagement and trust in the planning process: That anyone who submits an objection or comment on a planning application is automatically notified when that application is due to go to committee.

This seems like a modest but meaningful improvement. From what I understand, it could potentially be implemented within the existing planning portal—possibly just by enabling an existing notification setting in the back end.

I hope Cabinet will consider this as a practical and low-cost step towards improving transparency and inclusion in the planning process. 

Chair and Head of Planning’s response

Thank you for your feedback. By registering on our public access website the

progress of applications can be tracked, including automated notifications when the status of an application changes. This automated notification does not include referral to committee however nor committee dates. It is agreed that the notification process would be improved by Mr Lawler’s suggestion. We will take this away and discuss with our IT colleagues. Our public access system is provided by a third party (Idox Software) which provides a significant number of local planning authorities with the same system so any changes may be dependent on the capabilities of that system.

Planning Application Documents

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the report as published.

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

The objector addressed the Committee and made the following points:

-       Addressing the Committee on behalf of a group of objectors. They raised concerns that they had had inadequate time to respond and believe the process is unfair. As they only received the officer’s report and recommendation on Friday, they had fewer than five working days to review it so had been unable to respond meaningfully to the report due to work and family commitments.As objectors they have not been provided with comparable access to information and discussion as that granted to the applicant throughout the process, as reflected in the applicant having months of pre-application discussions and throughout the consultation period. This means there is not a level playing field for objectors.

-       Policy SD9 requires a 10% biodiversity net gain, but the officer’s report confirms that there will be a 39.7% net loss of habitat units. No formal confirmed mitigation has been identified, and no clear plan is included. They asked that the application does not proceed until a deliverable biodiversity gain plan is secured.

-       The officer report calling this underutilised land is deceiving. It was a private garden until developers had trees removed and building contractors dug the surface garden into a central mound, covering debris from the extension at 151 Prestbury Road. If accepted this sets a precedent that anyone with a garden large enough could class it as underutilised land and build on it regardless of character, impact or infrastructure. It undermines Cheltenham’s Garden Land SPD and policy D1 on overdevelopment. The dwellings footprint, closeness to neighbours, and overbearing presence were all acknowledged in the report, yet the application was still recommended for approval, directly contradicting the spirit of local policy and guidance.

-       Residents have raised concerns around loss of local amenity through overshadowing, privacy loss, and glare from solar panels – all in breach of policies D1 and SL1. No daylight/sunlight assessment has been provided.

-       The site plan inaccurately includes the house and front garden of 151 Prestbury Road, misleading Members about the development’s scale and context.

-       Concerns were raised about highway safety due to the plan’s limited turning room, in breach of policy INF1 which mandates safe access and suitable parking. Recent comments from the Highway Safety consultant raised that there are conflicts with original plans submitted for 151 Prestbury Road, which have not been addressed.

-       The modern character of the design and materials chosen do not align with the Edwardian context in conflict with policy D1 and SD4, which stresses the need for contextual respect. The modern proposal is incongruous with surrounding properties. Maybelle is cited as a recent development precedent, but this property does not have windows overlooking neighbouring properties on three sides.

-       The public have submitted significant evidence, supporting videos and photos across the consultation periods. They have no assurance that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Planning Application Documents

Councillors Oliver and Wheeler left the meeting.

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:

-       Speaking on the behalf of residents of Wellington Square which is recognised as one of the finest Regency squares in Cheltenham, if not nationally. It is a heritage asset to the town and is of historical importance. It lies within a conservation area, is truly unique and has been safeguarded for almost 200 years. The residents are, rightly, subject to stringent planning restrictions in relation to even the smallest details on their own properties.

-       Understand the shortage of housing stock and the pressure upon the council and accept that the plot of land in question is potentially suitable for development. From the outset we made a proposal which would permit development of a new house, following the line of the most relevant property – that of the close next-door property, Rosehill House. We believe this to be a reasonable compromise intended to minimize harmful impact, but it has been ignored.

-       There has been widespread opposition:

o   Firstly, from a very large numbers of residents.

o   Then, the independent planning consultant report (David Jones, January 2025 and March 2025) concluded that the proposed development and development revised conflicted with policy and identified a compromise: re-siting of the proposed dwelling to the eastern boundary adjoining Wellington Lane was the answer. It would maintain the openness of the site, alleviate concerns regarding overlooking/amenity issues and reflect a type of development more consistent with the historic environment.

o   The Planning Officers originally told the applicants to re-think because the proposal in “this sensitive location was considered to be harmful to the character of the area” concluding that it was too big for the plot and the design approach was inappropriate.

o   The Cheltenham Architects Panel advised it to be “an over development of the plot… and was harmful to the wider street scene.” They have not been consulted again on the revised proposal.

o   There have been a number of recent developments: the applicants have sold (subject to contract) the Garden House, the new owners’ intentions are not known; the owner of Rosehill House sold the property due to the stress caused by the applications and the potential harm to their property if granted; the new owner has sent a firm objection and the applicant’s architect, whose house is situated directly opposite this controversial proposal, has also put his house on the market at one point.

o   The Civic Society opposes the application, as do both our ward councillors.

-       I refer you to two principal grounds for refusal:

o   Design, layout and siting -

§  The siting of the dwelling house in the revised proposal remains the same but has not materially lowered in height and still maintains an obtrusive and forward building line.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Condition Application Documents

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report as published.

In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that:

-       Concerns about sewage (which is managed through a septic tank) would be handled by the private sector housing team rather than through planning permission. Concerns were raised and then closed in 2024 following mitigating actions to address concerns. The private housing team have confirmed no further objections have been reported to date. The planning officer has been on site a number of times and has not seen any evidence of sewage issues currently.

The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit subject to conditions:

For: 10

Against: 0

Abstentions: 0

Voted UNANIMOUSLY to permit subject to conditions.

Planning Application Documents

The Planning Officer introduced the report as published.

There were two public speakers on the item: an objector and the applicant.

The objector addressed the Committee and made the following points:

-       Talking on behalf of residents of Bournside Road who are objecting on the grounds of overdevelopment, loss of amenity, and loss of privacy.

-       Twelve objections were received during the consultation, and six letter of support. Objections were on average 1000 words, showing how serious objectors’ concerns are. When the location of those objecting is considered, objections from residents living on the road are overwhelmingly negative.

-       Bournside Road is mainly made up of detached houses with large gardens and large spaces between the houses. As you walk down the road between the houses you can see trees, hills and Hatherley Park behind the houses, which the SPD references in its description of good design in Cheltenham’s suburbs. This streetscape is being eroded through incremental planning decisions that permit overdevelopment of individual plots. They are looking for planning committee to protect the streetscape as defined in the SPD.

-       The most overdeveloped property on the street was granted planning permission retrospectively in 2022. It looks like no other house on the road, but the planning officer has chosen this house as the comparator for no. 18.

-       The plan shows only a 1m gap between the buildings edge and boundary. This is just enough space for scaffolding to be erected, so the design is as wide as physically possible. The roof reaches the maximum allowed height and the building’s mass from the front cannot be any larger. The floor space is increasing by 300% which the planning officer considers a modest increase in footprint. However, compared to typical houses on this stretch of road it is overdevelopment.

-       Objectively the plan does not meet the SPD design principles:

o   The character of the building has not been maintained, as the building has lost symmetry and matches neither the character of the original house or the streetscape.

o   Due to the much larger roof and side extension taking up half of the visual bulk of the house from the front, instead of supporting the original house the extension and roof dominate it. It is not subservient to the original design.

o   Space has not been maintained between the buildings. If a single storey garage extension had been proposed the view of trees being the house would have been maintained. The planning officer’s report states that there is still a 2m gap and no terracing effect, but the view will still be lost with such a small gap.

o   Loft conversions should follow the design guidelines and extend into roof spaces. In this proposal the flat roof elevation with Juliet balcony gives the appearance of a third floor. The SPD explicitly states that a loft conversion should not appear as an extra storey on top of the house. The SPD recommends sloping roofs with flush or recessed dormer windows in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The appeal updates were noted.

There were none.