Agenda and draft minutes

There were none.

There were none.

The following Councillors attended all sites during Planning View:

-       Councillor Garth Barnes

-       Councillor Barbara Clark

-       Councillor Jan Foster

-       Councillor Tony Oliver

-       Councillor Dr Steve Steinhardt

Councillor Adrian Bamford had visited site 6a and was familiar with site 6b.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 16 October 2025.

To approve the minutes of the Extraordinary meeting held on 21 October 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 October 2025 were approved and signed as a correct record.

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

There were none.

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:

-       Live to the north of the site and on two sides of their property are proposed dwellings, garages and car parks.

-       Want to raise the issue of surface water drainage. Concerned that levels on the boundary with their property may be changed without consultation, not allowing them the opportunity to address related issues this may cause around vehicular right of way across the site as well as potential flooding issues. Want to be consulted about the impacts of levels and drainage issues.

-       It is imperative that the boundary treatment around their house follows that approved by the planning inspector in September 2023, which specifies a 3-meter buffer and a 1.8-meter close board fence. The design and access statement from June 2022 also confirms a 3-meter wide green buffer has been introduced to provide screening for the existing properties off Leckhampton Court Farm. Despite this boundary treatment being included in comments in April 2025 and July 2025, the New Dawn Homes plans do not appear to confirm either the buffer or the fence. In the current application the latest site plan does not show the fence, and approval would make this site plan an official document, leaving the status of the fence in question. Residents of existing properties are relying on this buffer and fence to limit the impact and intrusion of the development, as well as providing privacy and amenity. Were reassured that the planning inspector clearly included the buffer and the fence but are concerned that there is no guarantee that they will appear later in the landscape scheme as they are not shown on the current site plan.

-       Ask the committee to include a condition in the approved plans which ensures that a 3-meter buffer and a 1.8-meter close board fence are included as approved by the planning inspector in documents PL-05-D and PL-03-H. Such a condition would also ensure compliance with Joint Core Strategy (JCS) Policy SD4.

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

-       Chartered surveyor specialising in residential development, speaking in favour of New Dawn Homes’ Section 73 planning application to amend the house-types and make minor changes to the scheme by Redrow which was approved at appeal. As consented, it is a low-density scheme for 30 homes, including 12 affordable homes, located between Leckhampton Farm Court and Church Road.

-       The original application to revise the Redrow permission was withdrawn following a meeting with the parish council and discussions with the planning officers. This new application has been progressed to resolve all of the concerns that were raised and make minor amendments requested by officers.

-       The road access point on Church Road and the number of proposed homes is unchanged from the consented scheme. The internal road layout and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Planning Application Documents

The Chair addressed the meeting and highlighted that he appreciated the concern that this application is having on the community and his gratitude that the Cheltenham Civic Society have asked people to be respectful and not cause any disturbance by heckling during the meeting. Protests are an unalienable right enshrined in our democracy and the Chair defends that totally. However, he is equally of the opinion threatening people to a certain view is unacceptable and there has been some indication that such threats have been put out on social media to put pressure on planning members. As a committee they have a responsibility to listen to all parties including the council’s respected planning officers. They will without doubt take account of all views and deal with the application based on the information and with due regard to the planning process.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report and the update officer report as published. She explained that the recommendation is to grant outline planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the update officer report and the applicant entering into a S106 agreement and specified obligations. She noted that there was one correction in 7.3 of the officer report which should read “strong reasons for refusal” rather than “clear reasons for refusal.”

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

The objector addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       Object to the planning application in any form because the site lies in a designated National Landscape. This carries statutory protection and the proposal conflicts with national policy, case law, and previous appeals for this very site and the same previous arguments.

-       There are also serious and material omissions that make this application invalid and raise significant concerns about due diligence.

-       The biodiversity net gain calculations (BNG) are flawed. The applicant proposes to enhance and replace the south-western boundary hedgerow with a native one instead of the non-native laurel to give a 16% increase. This south-western boundary, however, is not within the red line and belongs to the objector and their neighbours. BNG calculations cannot include habitats outside the red line without agreement or legal control, so the BNG 16% increase calculation is invalid. No approach or discussion has been made by the applicant. To replace this hedgerow without permission would not be lawful. 

-       The plans are flawed as the development is situated right over private water supply pipes. There is no acknowledgement of this, no lawful diversion strategy, and no right of access and there has been no approach or discussion.

-       The revised street perspective views rely on a disingenuously planted tree in front of the houses to obscure the loss of the key view down from Ryeworth Road onto the escarpment. The plans reduce this open view by approximately 50% from the top of Ryeworth Road and the landscape architect reported the visual impact could cause a major/moderate material change in places. A  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The appeal updates were noted.

There were none.