Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Jan Foster and Suzanne Williams.

There were none.

The following Councillors attended sites 6b and 6d during Planning View:

-       Councillor Frank Allen

-       Councillor Garth Barnes

-       Councillor Barbara Clark

-       Councillor Dr. Steve Steinhardt

-       Councillor Simon Wheeler

Councillor Dr. Steve Steinhardt confirmed he had visited site 6e.

Councillor Adrian Bamford confirmed he had visited sites 6b and 6d.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 18 September 2025

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 September 2025 were approved and signed as a correct record.

There were none.

This item has been deferred until 20^th November 2025.

This item was deferred until 20 November 2025 by officers.

Planning Application Documents

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report as published.

There was one public speaker on the item: an objector.

The objector addressed the Committee and made the following points:

-       Objecting for the following reasons: –

o   The validity of the application. The application refers to two catering units, a vintage horse box and a catering trailer but has only provided an image of one unit. Which unit is proposed is a material matter as if will affect how the site looks and functions within the conservation area. The application should not have been validated without this information. The application also lacks detail on what food will be served and how it will be prepared. The applicant posted a public comment after validation providing further information which was not revalidated or consulted upon. Yet, this information has been reflected in the planning assessment and underpins environmental health’s lack of objection. Why is a comment being relied upon when it is not part of the validated application pack?

o   Impartiality and independence. The council’s property services department identified Swindon Village Park as one of several sites it wished to commercialise through mobile trading opportunities. When the applicant responded to this initiative, the same department, who would ordinarily receive income from a license, provided a strongly supportive consultancy response. They described it as a “strategic enhancement that delivers measurable community and financial benefits” and emphasised the corporate plan and commercial return to the council. This response has also been featured prominently in the planning assessment. Why was such promotional language accepted in a planning context when the department providing stands to benefit commercially from the outcome? The tone and content of the response risks compromising the appearance of impartiality that the planning process depends upon.

o   Licensing and joined up governance. Any trading from council owned land also requires a street trading consent under the council’s own policy. That process normally includes consultation with planning, environmental health and highways. While there’s no legal requirement for the process to operate in reverse, good governance would expect planning to seek licensing’s view when the same issues overlap. Why has the recommendation been made without advice from the very team responsible for assessing whether trading at this location is safe or consistent with council policy?

o   Equality and fairness. The planning assessment states simply that the public sector equality duty has been met but provides no explanation as to how. There is no analysis on whether charging for refreshments in what has always been free community space might disadvantage those on low incomes. The law requires that due regard be given to these issues. Why was no equality assessment carried out before recommending approval? Swindon Village Park has always been a free and inclusive space where families can enjoy the same facilities regardless of income. Introducing a paid food outlet changes the balance and creates a commercial zone within what was a shared public amenity, effectively turning part of the park into a pay-to-participate area.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Variation of Condition Documents

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report as published.

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

The objector addressed the Committee and made the following points:

-       The appeal decision that permitted Admiral’s adult gaming centre subject to this application carries significant weight as the planning inspectors who made the decision were operating at the highest level of government. Paragraph 16 reads: “Residents of town centres could therefore reasonably anticipate a level of activity and noise at night normally associated with town centre uses. By the same token, nearby residents in this case could also reasonably expect controls to be imposed on a use such as this so that their amenities are not unacceptably harmed”. The inspector imposed the current hours in order to protect the amenities of residents and therefore Admiral’s proposal for an unrestricted gambling use is unreasonable and expressly against the inspector’s judgment.

-       Admiral is seeking to justify its 24-hour proposal through the introduction of a noise impact assessment that had not been included in the original application or the appeal. However, a noise impact assessment was submitted by a third party during the appeal. It comprehensively considered 24-hour gambling and came to the conclusion that the impact of noise from the proposal presents a high risk. Paragraph 22 of the inspector’s decision says: “I have taken into account all other matters raised in the representations”. This would have included the noise impact assessment that formed part of the appeal and would have informed the decision that restricted opening hours were necessary. The new noise impact assessment does not amount to new evidence other than the inclusion of noise data from the now operating unit. The methodology behind the new assessment is inadequate as it only carried out surveys between 11pm and 2am over a Monday and Tuesday, far outside Admiral’s peak trading gambling hours.

-       Whilst the officer’s report makes references to other 24-hour commercial units operating in the town centre, it is a fundamental principal of planning decisions that each application has to be assessed on its own merits.

-       The conditions suggested by the appellant are unacceptable since they are unlikely to be effective in protecting residents immediately in the early hours of the morning. Restrictions of opening hours are likely to be more effective, as recognised by the inspector.

-       The 24-hour gambling operation of Admiral’s adult gaming centre was comprehensively considered as part of the appeal and it is not right for the local planning authority to go against the inspector’s decision to impose restrictive opening hours. It would also be contrary to the Cheltenham Plan policy SL1 and Joint Core Strategy (JCS) policy SD14.

-       Numerous public objections have been submitted on the basis of noise, including an objection from the MP. Strongly urge the committee to refuse the application.

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

-       Luxury Leisure is the market leading operator of adult gaming centres  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Planning Application Documents

The Head of Planning introduced the report as published.

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

For: 9

Against: 0

Abstain: 0

Voted UNANIMOUSLY to grant the application.

25/01260/CONDIT - Variation to Condition Documents

25/01281/CONDIT - Variation to Condition Documents

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report as published. Following a letter sent to Members by the applicant the day before, the officer clarified that:

-       Two of the proposed holiday units do involve the subdivision of part of the main house. The remaining three would be accommodated in the proposed extension and will be purpose-built units.

-       Regarding the use of the proposed units. The officer has checked email correspondence with the applicant from July 2024.  The description of development had changed during the course of determining the original application following the submission of revised proposals. At that time officers had sought clarification on the revised occupancy of the five units as short-term private lettings or rented properties and as staff accommodation, as opposed to all five being holiday lets as originally proposed. At no time previously had there been any proposal or suggestion that the units were intended to be occupied as permanent independent dwellings. The application was first submitted and was determined on the basis of it being holiday accommodation. It was this departure from the description of the development plus various revisions to the design and layout of the scheme that required the 3-week re-consultation exercise that is referred to in the letter.

-       The applicant’s comments about future occupiers being able to use the garden and recreational facilities at Glenfall House have also been noted but this would rely on the agreement of the owners of Glenfall House. In officer’s opinion a condition requiring that this arrangement remains in place in perpetuity would be unreasonable and would not pass the relevant NPPF tests. In contrast to holiday let visitors it also seems unlikely that occupiers of the proposed separate dwellings would be allowed extensive access to the private gardens and other facilities at Glenfall House.

-       On the matter of replacement dwellings. There are currently three small units within the modern outbuilding on site, known as Glenfall Garden Cottages. This building had previously been subdivided into three small self-contained units which were used in association with the previous hotel use at Glenfall House. Minimal alterations were required to the building to provide the three independent dwellings which were approved in 2021.

-       Policy SD10 of the JCS does not support new housing development outside of the Principal Urban Area (PUA). Whilst the subdivision of the main house to provide two new dwellings would be generally supported by SD10 and, subject to other wider considerations, the remaining three units would be purpose-built new dwellings and would be in conflict with SD10. Similarly, there is no development plan policy that specifically relates to replacement dwellings outside the Principal Urban Area or in the Cotswold National Landscape (AONB). Whether the three new build dwellings would be regarded as replacement dwellings for the small garden cottage units is a matter of judgement and each application is always considered on its own merits. In this case the size, scale, layout and form of the proposed new dwellings within the extension  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

The appeal updates were noted.

There were none.