Agenda item

Member Questions

These must be received no later than 12 noon on the seventh working day before the date of the meeting.

Minutes:

Seven Member questions had been submitted by two Members.  The questions and responses were taken as read; supplementary questions are shown below.

1.     Question from Councillor Martin Horwood to the Cabinet Member Planning & Building Control, Councillor Mike Collins

How many Section 106 agreements have been concluded in the Leckhampton ward since May 2023 and for which developments?

Member response

1.          21/02750/FUL – Unilateral Undertaking dated 18 August 2023, land adjoining Leckhampton Farm Court (Redrow Homes Ltd - 30 dwellings).

 

2.          21/02750/FUL – s106 Agreement dated 05 July 2023, land adjoining Leckhampton Farm Court (Redrow Homes Ltd - 30 dwellings).

 

3.          22/02205/FUL – s106 Agreement dated 12 February 2024, land off Kidnappers Lane (Newland Homes – 13 dwellings)

 

4.          22/02205/FUL – s106 Agreement (variation to the above) dated 09 May 2025, land off Kidnappers Lane (Newland Homes – 13 dwellings)

 

5.          23/00813/FUL – Unilateral Undertaking dated 19 April 2024 at 170-172 Leckhampton Road (Boo Homes – retail unit + 14 dwellings)

 

6.          23/01856/FUL – Unilateral Undertaking dated 23 January 2024 at Leckhampton Lodge, 23 Moorend Park Road (single dwelling)

 

2.     Question from Councillor Martin Horwood to the Cabinet Member Planning & Building Control, Councillor Mike Collins

How many Section 106 agreements are currently being negotiated in the Leckhampton ward and for which developments?

Member response

1.        25/01073/FUL: Residential development of 21no. zero carbon dwellings with associated access and internal roads, parking, landscaping, and other associated works and infrastructure. Newland Homes Ltd

 

2.        25/01031/CONDIT: Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of planning permission 21/02750/FUL to allow for change in house types/design and associated site layout changes. New Dawn Homes Ltd

 

 

3.     Question from Councillor Martin Horwood to the Cabinet Member Planning & Building Control, Councillor Mike Collins

How are councillors currently consulted on section 106 agreements as per policy agreed by cabinet on 5 April 2022 and by council on 20 June 2022 (Cabinet & council paper recommendation 6 and para 6.4) which obliged officers to:

  • Notify ward members of any application of interest and identify any known demands for local infrastructure
  • Notify ward members when an application is likely to result in section 106 negotiation
  • Update planning report templates to include details of section 106 agreements agreed
  • Provide section 106 training for members

Member response

 

Ward members are notified of all planning applications within their ward via a weekly email sent to all members on a Friday. The weekly list is subdivided on a ward-by-ward basis, so that ward members can easily refer to their own areas. Paragraph 6.4 of the 2022 Cabinet report sets this out as follows:

1. Following review of the weekly list Ward members to notify the case officer of any application of interest and identify any known demands for infrastructure in the area.

2. Where an application is expected to result in the need for S106 negotiation, the case officer to notify the relevant ward members to enable engagement early in the application process

The onus is on the member to review that list and comment accordingly within the deadline set out in that email. It is open to members to comment on the need or otherwise for a s106 Agreement at this early stage as well as what that agreement ought to include.  This will then be taken into account in the case officer’s consideration of the scheme.

 

In addition, the planning case officer emails the relevant ward member(s) when a planning application (which is likely to be recommended for approval) is to be subject to a s106 Agreement; again, the onus is on the member to respond to that notification email as they see fit.

 

The Planning case officer does not notify the ward member when a s106 Agreement takes the form of a standardised unilateral undertaking (for example to make a financial contribution towards mitigating any impact on the Cotswolds Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation) as these non-negotiable. Similarly, the Planning case officer does not notify the ward member where a s106 Agreement simply serves an administrative function such as tying a new permission to a previous agreement for example.

 

All planning reports include a section on the requisite s106 Agreement heads of terms, in as much detail as is possible at that stage. This section was updated post the 2022 Cabinet/Council reports to add the additional clarity and transparency sought by members.

 

Annual members’ training includes training on Planning obligations and the mechanisms for securing them (s106 Agreements for example).  The 2026 members training programme will include a bespoke session on s106 Agreements. The Head of Planning works alongside Planning Committee Members and myself to agree the priorities for training.  All members, whether a member of Planning Committee, a substitute or otherwise are invited to attend.  I attend as many training sessions on planning as possible and actively encourage my member colleagues to do the same.  The latest training took place in November on urban design.


Supplementary question to Questions 1, 2 and 3

Thank you for your very comprehensive and detailed responses to Questions 1, 2 and 3, setting out how the system should work, and all the S106 agreements currently underway in Leckhampton. This supplementary question relates to those three responses.

Under the policy adopted in 2022, ward members should be actively consulted on S106 agreements, and the Head of Planning has since confirmed that this should mean the heads of terms and draft agreements being shared with councillors before the agreement is concluded - but as far as I am aware, this has not happened in any of the  eight examples listed in the answers to Questions 1, 2 and 3.  This is obviously an operational issue but could the Cabinet Member take this up with the Head of Planning, to check whether the planning team is correctly implementing the policy adopted in 2022, and how it is now working?

Cabinet Member response

Thanks for the original questions and supplementary.  I believe that the processes we have are robust enough to support local ward members with planning applications that may involve an S106 agreement, and would remind all members that it is their responsibility to get involved with planning process in their own wards – asking questions, finding out details, and working with case officers at the earliest opportunity.

In addition, I would encourage all Members to attend as many training sessions as they possibly can, particularly those which concern planning.  Members should support training of any description – it is vital and provides important information to help them do the best job. 

4.     Question from Councillor Martin Horwood to the Cabinet Member Planning & Building Control, Councillor Mike Collins

Will the cabinet member refer the policy in Q [3] above to the constitution working group to ensure that planning procedure unambiguously mandates this policy in practice?

Member response

I appreciate the commitment made by Cllr Horwood to ongoing service improvement and this is something I too promote across my portfolio.  However, I do not consider this is a matter for the constitution working group.  The planning team, further to the reports of 2022 responded to the principles as set out in those reports in respect of enhanced transparency and engagement with ward members on S106.

Engagement in planning applications is a two-way engagement.  The planning team facilitate notification to ward members as appropriate and should any ward members wish to discuss any matter, including any potential elements that may form a S106 then it is their responsibility to do so by making contact via email, telephone, our Teams environment or organise a face to face meeting.  As regularly expressed to members via planning training, this engagement is actively encouraged.

It should be remembered that S106 can only be negotiated where it is:

1. necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

2. directly related to the development; and

3. fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development

Building best practice and checking and challenging our processes is a live service improvement piece and our commitment to this was documented in the Planning Advisory Service/Local Government Association Planning Service Peer Challenge that took place between 27th February, and 2nd March 2023. 

I meet with the Head of Planning regularly and the Planning and Liaison Member Working Group has a standing agenda item which provides an open platform to discuss opportunities for service improvement, lessons learnt and building on best practice.  Cllr Horwood is a member of that group, and I encourage him to engage either with myself or the Head of Planning on future agenda items as appropriate.

Supplementary question

The Cabinet Member isright that it is the responsibility of ward members to make contact with planning officers, but the exact wording of the 2022 Cabinet recommendation states that where an application is expected to result in the need for an S106 negotiation,  the case officer should notify relevant ward members to enable engagement with them at the earliest opportunity, so there is also an onus on officers to get in touch with ward members.  The original reply says the constitution working group is not necessarily the right route for this to be looked at, but can I ask that you consult with officers to come up with a process to examine how the protocol could be amended to reinforce the policy as adopted in 2022 and make sure it is being implemented.

 

Cabinet Member response

I would say any process, procedure or protocol is only valid if followed, so I will take away question and speak with senior planning team to see if it is being followed and if anything is needed to strengthen it.  

 

5.     Question from Councillor David Willingham to the Cabinet Member for Housing and Communities, Councillor Flo Clucas

Following the recent publication of the English Indices of Deprivation 2025, several areas of Cheltenham are shown as being in the statistically most deprived quintile when assessed using the Index of Multiple Deprivation.  Could the Cabinet Member for Housing and Customer Services please confirm whether the council will be looking in more detail at the underlying data, and advise how the council will invest in those communities identified as statistically deprived to help improve people's well-being?

Member response:

The English Indices of Deprivation 2025 were published on 30 October 2025 by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The indices rank 33,755 neighbourhoods (LSOAs) based on seven domains of deprivation. The domains were combined using the following weights to produce the overall Index of Multiple Deprivation:

  • Income Deprivation (22.5%)
  • Employment Deprivation (22.5%)
  • Education, Skills and Training Deprivation (13.5%)
  • Health Deprivation and Disability (13.5%)
  • Crime (9.3%)
  • Barriers to Housing and Services (9.3%)
  • Living Environment Deprivation (9.3%)

In addition to the Index of Multiple Deprivation and the seven domain indices, there are two supplementary indices: the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index and the Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index.

The borough contains two Lower-layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs) that fall into the most deprived 10% nationally (parts of Hesters Way and St. Pauls) and three further areas that are in the 20% most deprived nationally.

 

 St MARK'S 1

1,561

St PAUL'S 2

2,298

HESTERS WAY 3

3,715

HESTERS WAY 1

4,983

SWINDON VILLAGE 2

6,141

 A map of the Indices of Deprivation is shown below:

In terms of reviewing the underlying data, the County Council has already published more details on the Inform platform:

https://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/inform/deprivation/

In addition, officers have reviewed the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) which measures the proportion of all children aged 0 to 15 living in income deprived families. Cheltenham has 8 areas that are ranked in the most deprived 20% nationally for this indicator. These areas are:

LSOA ref

IDACI national rank

St PAUL'S 2

946

HESTERS WAY 3

1,304

OAKLEY 2

4,334

SWINDON VILLAGE 2

4,628

HESTERS WAY 2

4,755

St MARK'S 1

4,804

HESTERS WAY 1

5,604

OAKLEY 3

6,012

St Paul's 2 is in the top 3% most deprived nationally and second top in the County.  This puts this part of Cheltenham in a similar bracket to parts of Blackpool, Sheffield and Birmingham.

The framework for our work on addressing the issues flagged up by the Indices of Deprivation is set out in the Council’s corporate plan 2025-2028 which makes a firm commitment to tackling inequalities via Key priority 4 - “Reducing inequalities, supporting better outcomes”. Within this priority, there are four aims:

  • Opportunities to be healthy and active should be available to everyone, whether that’s through simply spending time in our green spaces or through participation in sport, leisure or culture.
  • Our leisure and culture assets and services are our key vehicle for providing accessible opportunities for everyone and we need to safeguard these for the future.
  • To effect meaningful change more broadly on the inequalities agenda, and to ensure we support work on prevention of crime and disorder, we know that we must continue to work with both our public sector partners, and with other organisations through No Child Left Behind.
  • We also have a role to play in supporting groups and organisations working to make a practical difference within their local communities.

Within this priority, some of the themes that are currently being delivered on include:

  • Healthy and active – the launch of the feel-good pass that enables users of food banks and pantries to access 12 free sessions at Leisure at Cheltenham and three other community activity providers.
  • Leisure and Culture assets – undertaking a study of how best to secure the future for Leisure at and the Prince of Wales Stadium
  • Working with partners – the Council continues to convene a wide range of groups including the community safety partnership, the facing financial hardship group and No Child Left Behind
  • Supporting community organisations – the Council has enabled financial support for community food banks and pantries via the Council’s allocation of Household Support Fund, community-based health equity projects via its health and wellbeing grants and has also supported Petersfield Partnership with the Petersfield sports and community hub with works now started on-site.

In terms of housing, CBC housing services teams (Community Investment, Money and benefit Advice, training and employment teams) have a strong track record of working with the St Marks, St Pauls and Hesters Way communities to engage tenants and deliver projects to provide opportunities to increase income, improve life chances and alleviate deprivation.

An example of this was the delivery of a skills hub at Hesters Way resource centre (supported by Councillor Willingham) The teams are currently working on service plans for the coming year which will include projects to further alleviate deprivation. It would be helpful to discuss these plans with Councillor Willingham as they are currently in development.

Supplementaryquestion
The amount of data shows that the council is aware of deprivation, and I’m glad to see we’ve looked at the new stats and at what the council can do.

 

Cabinet Member response

Looking at the five areas at top of deprivation list in Cheltenham, may I suggest that it would be useful to meet with the Mayor, ward councillors and officers to see how we can change the potential for those areas, for the future of the children, young people, older people, those without work - not just talking about things but doing them as well. I look forward to arranging to take that forward.

 

6.     Question from Councillor David Willingham to the Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Wellbeing, Culture and Public Realm, Councillor Izaac Tailford

Does the Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Culture, Wellbeing and Public Realm agree with me that the Lansdown Art Studios (https://lansdownartstudios.com/) are an important cultural asset to our town, and could he please reaffirm this council's desire to ensure they able to retain suitable premises in town? 

Member response:

Thank you, Cllr Willingham, for highlighting the value of Lansdown Art Studios as part of the wider cultural contribution to Cheltenham and supporting local artists.  I visited them myself recently and can see how fantastic they are, particularly in providing a space for growing artists to establish themselves.

The Council has been in active and ongoing engagement with the artist studio related to their current location.  The current site occupied by the Art Studios forms part of a live Section 106 negotiation which is ongoing.  I cannot comment on the detail of this due to this being a live negotiation.

The council remains committed to fostering a vibrant cultural sector. We cannot comment on specific premises elsewhere in town, but we share the ambition to see organisations like Lansdown Art Studios thrive and promote creative endeavours through the Visit Cheltenham website. 

No supplementary question

7.         Question from Councillor David Willingham to the Cabinet Member Finance and Assets, Councillor Peter Jeffries

Could the cabinet member please confirm this council will pursue full costs recovery against the drivers and insurers of all and any overheight vehicles that collide with and damage overbridges on the Honeybourne Line?

Member response

The council will review each case individually. Following each strike CBC will arrange for our consultant engineers to inspect the bridge and provide advice regarding the damage caused. If any damage is caused and it warrants repair then a claim will be pursued against the third party's insurance policy.

In respect of the recent bridge strike on 4th December our consultant engineers have inspected the bridge and advised that the damage caused was not detrimental to the structural integrity of the bridge with its current use as a footpath and cycleway. We are awaiting their advice whether repairs are required and therefore whether a claim will be made against the third party.

Supplementary question

 

If the bridge road needs to be closed for investigation works, can we use the opportunity to install anti-bird netting there, as evidence suggests walking under bridge is a high-risk activity, giving rise to a lot of case work about that?

Cabinet Member response

I take the request on board and will pass it on to relevant officers,  but cannot say whether the highways authority will act upon it.

Supporting documents: