Agenda and minutes

Apologies received from Councillors Barbara Clark and Suzanne Williams.

Councillor Jackie Chelin acted as substitute and joined the meeting for item 6a.

Councillor Tony Oliver declared an interest in item 6b as his family own a commercial property on Tivoli Street. He confirmed that he would recuse himself from the meeting for this item.

Councillor Jackie Chelin recused herself from item 6b, due to her position as Ward Member for the area.

The following Councillors attended all sites during Planning View:

-       Councillor Adrian Bamford

-       Councillor Garth Barnes

-       Councillor Iain Dobie

-       Councillor Jan Foster

-       Councillor Tony Oliver

-       Councillor Dr. Steve Steinhardt

-       Councillor Simon Wheeler

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 20^th November 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 November 2025 were approved and signed as a correct record.

There were none.

Following the Chair’s approval, the order of the agenda was amended and the applications were considered as follows:

1^st - 6c) 25/00828/TREEPO - Rear of Mitford Lodge, Tivoli Road, Cheltenham, GL50 2TF

2^nd – 6a) 25/00780/FUL - Pittville School, Albert Road, Cheltenham, GL52 3JD

3^rd - 6b) 25/01296/FUL - Prinbox Works, Saddlers Lane, Tivoli Walk, Cheltenham, GL50 2UX

Planning Application Documents

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report as published. She noted the following updates:

-       The site layout was revised recently. The revisions are relatively minor tweaks to improve garden sizes and distances between properties. Most of the revised layout drawings have been received but there are still one or two outstanding. Any drawing that shows a layout, whether that be drainage or boundary treatment details for example, needs to be adjusted in terms of the correct layout so that they all tally. If Members are minded to permit this application, once the outstanding drawings are received the officer will inform the Chair and Vice Chair of their submission, and before any decision is issued.

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

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

-       The site was part of Pittville School’s grounds and became redundant as a playing field, last used in 2009. The site was previously granted planning permission in 2021, but the developer was unable to bring the site forward due to the site requiring Section 77 approval to dispose of the land to raise capital receipts for a new sports hall. This has subsequently been resolved, and the site has been purchased by Newland Homes. The funds generated from the sale of the land have provided the school with the ability to construct a much-needed new indoor sports hall.

-       Planning application was submitted in May 2025 and applicants have worked with officers to agree a scheme that is aesthetically pleasing and is policy compliant.

-       The scheme will deliver 58 new homes, 40% of which will be affordable. This is an appropriate density for the site.

-       The site is located towards the northern edge of Cheltenham, approximately 1.6km from the town centre and within reasonable walking distance to local services. A regular bus service is also available.

-       The site is just over two hectares and is rectangular shape with a narrow treeline section which extends approximately 150m from the site to the west and links with Albert Road.

-       Vehicle access will be taken from Broadacre Road. Gloucestershire County Highways have confirmed that this access, along with the internal road layout and associated parking, is acceptable. Pedestrian access will be provided from Albert Road and Cakebridge Road.

-       Layout provides good separation distances to existing residential dwellings.

-       Ecology and biodiversity and biodiversity enhancements to the site and existing ecology corridors will be retained. Hedgehog highways and bat and bird boxes will be provided within the development, along with new and enhanced tree and shrub planting. Biodiversity net gain will be provided partly on site and partly off site, in line with current legislation.

-       On site open space is provided along with S106 contributions for off site play provisions and improvements to Pittville Park. Contributions will also be provided for allotments and the Cotswold Beechwoods SAC, education and libraries.

-       Newland Homes is a local house builder based in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Planning Application Documents

Councillors Oliver and Chelin recused themselves from this item. Councillor Chelin remained at the back of the Chamber until she had spoken in her capacity as Ward Member.

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:

-       They are a chartered town planner speaking on behalf of the Cheltenham Civic Society. Living in Tivoli he knows the site well and supports the principle of it being used for a new residential development. The existing buildings are unattractive, so redevelopment of the site is an opportunity to provide more and better housing, and to enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

-       Section 72 the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 creates a duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. The Civic Society objects to this proposal because it does not do that. On the contrary, it wastes an opportunity to make the area more attractive.

-       The applicant claims that the scheme shows particular sensitivity to the Tivoli character area but in fact the design completely fails to match the vernacular of the area. The area is quite distinctive as the council’s own character assessment explains clearly. Looking at the existing early and mid-Victorian terraces in the area, three features stand out:

o   scale;

o   treatment of the street frontage;

o   style, proportions and materials.

-       In terms of scale, while the surrounding streets in Tivoli are two storey artisan terraces, with pitched roofs. This proposal is for a three-storey development, with a flat roof. Though the CGI images are designed to make the third storey almost disappear.

-       In terms of the street frontage, the existing houses have small front gardens, with railings to the pavement, but generous back gardens, with plenty of amenity space.  None of them have on-site parking or use pavement crossovers or have roof terraces. The proposed houses have on-site parking spaces, which require pavement crossovers, thus privatising some of the on-street parking that others use. The large parking bays create gaping empty spaces opening directly on to the pavement – completely out of character and potentially messy and unsettling. The outdoor amenity space provided is minimal and mean, and in trying to create a bit more, the proposal includes first floor terraces. Not only are they completely out of character, but they will also face directly to the bedrooms of houses across the street, causing intrusive overlooking and noise nuisance that a windowed bedroom would not.

-       As for style, the existing terraces look attractive and coherent, through the consistent use of proportions and materials. This proposal ignores these essential features of the Tivoli character area. Instead of stucco they are using “buff-coloured brick, and vertical stack patterns, with vertical timber cladding”. Instead of painted front doors there will be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

This item was taken first on the agenda. As Councillor Chelin was not present for the start of item she did not take part in the debate or vote.

The Tree 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:

-       Appealing against the proposal to convert the Tree Protection Order (TPO) on the Holm Oak at Mitford Lodge, Tivoli Road, from temporary to permanent.

-       Misguided by previous advisers and now understand the process. The tree can be satisfactorily maintained under the arrangements in place for managing trees within the conservation area, without the need for a TPO.

-       The trigger for the temporary TPO came about because as ‘laypeople’ they didn’t fully understand the process for the application to undertake remedial work. The advice given at the time was that the application would lead to a conversation and agreement on the detail of the work.

-       Do not recall point 4.5 in the officer’s comments whereby they were advised against the proposal by original consultants.

-       Also refer to point 6.1 of the Conclusion and Recommendation that “despite attempts by the tree officer to negotiate a more moderate approach to the tree, the applicant was unwilling to change their proposal until a TPO was served”. These comments were made directly to previous advisors and the applicants had no knowledge of these attempts. This was no fault of the officers.

-       Now understand that the original application was a statement of intent and this can only be declined by the council through the introduction of a TPO. Have since engaged a new professional consultant who has explained the process fully. This has already led to an approved programme of work for the tree which has recently been successfully completed.

-       Look forward to working with these professionals along with the council to maintain Holm Oak. In their opinion there is no need for the TPO to be made permanent.

In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that:

-       If the TPO is agreed, the residents can approach the council’s tree officers if they want to carry out maintenance work. Providing it is acceptable this work would be approved.

-       Officially, technically and by the letter of the law all tree works should be submitted to the local authority and approved prior to work commencing. From a procedural perspective there is very little difference from the customer’s experience of submitting a tree works notice if a TPO is present or not. In either case they would need to submit to the council. It is unlikely that the council would prosecute someone for removing epicormic growth without prior notice to the council, as it is unlikely to be in the public interest to do so. Submitting the correct paperwork does not take a lot of energy or time and contractors can do this on the owner’s behalf. There is no fee from the council,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Councillor Chelin returned to the meeting.

The appeal updates were noted.

There were none.