Agenda item

Four Member questions had been received from four Members.  The original questions and written responses had been published and were taken as read.

1.     Question from Councillor Cathal Lynch to Cabinet Member for Planning and Building Control, Councillor Mike Collins

There is a strong local interest in the nature of the frontage at the 131 restaurant/bar on the Promenade. Given how long the current structures have been present, can we have some clarity on if and why there have been any delays in changes being made as previously directed by the council?

Member response:

Thank you for your question.

The marquee structures currently situated forward of 125-133 Promenade are unauthorised and do not have the benefit of planning permission. An Enforcement Notice requiring these unauthorised structures to be removed, was served on the property owner in January 2024. The legislation is such that when an appeal is lodged against an Enforcement Notice, the Enforcement Notice is suspended until such time that the appeal has been determined.

In this case, the property owner lodged an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate shortly after receipt of the Enforcement Notice (February 2024); the Notice is therefore currently suspended, and this will remain the case until the Planning Inspectorate determine the appeal. The Planning Inspectorate has now been dealing with this appeal for over two years, and to-date has declined to provide a meaningful update.

Notwithstanding the live appeal, the property owner may remove the marquees at any time and replace them with the permanent structures which were granted planning permission in March 2025, but to-date has not done so. The council has no power to force the property owner to remove the marquees while the Enforcement Notice is suspended by the appeal proceedings.

2.     Question from Councillor David Willingham to Cabinet Member for Planning and Building Control, Councillor Mike Collins

Planning application forms contain the following declaration which must be accepted by the applicant or agent: "I/We confirm that, to the best of my/our knowledge, any facts stated are true and accurate and any opinions given are the genuine opinions of the person(s) giving them." Could the cabinet member for planning please advise how many cases in the previous and current municipal year have misstatements been identified and reported by a) officers, b) councillors, and c) others, and how many applicants or agents have suffered any sanctions or consequences for making untrue or knowingly inaccurate statements on planning applications (including details if the matters are not sub judice)?

Member response:

Thank you for your question.

The planning department does not record this data in a numerical format and so the number/frequency of individual circumstances of inaccurate information within planning submissions cannot be reported.

The submission of inaccurate information is uncommon and when it does occur it is often because of a genuine error or misunderstanding. The correct and reasonable approach when receiving inaccurate information is to seek its withdrawal and/or correction and this is what our Planning Officers do. If the revised corrected information is material, re-consultation of neighbours etc. will usually follow. No further sanctions are necessary.

3.     Question from Councillor David Willingham to Cabinet Member for Housing and Customer Services, Councillor Flo Clucas

The Cheltenham Borough Council Housing Voids Policy suggests the majority of properties are supplied unfurnished and without white goods such as a cooker, washing machine or fridge-freezer.  Where a person or family being housed do not already have these items, the cost of new white goods is considerable, and options such as commercially renting them weekly or credit/borrowing are very expensive and depending on an individual's credit history may not even be available.  Would the cabinet member for housing agree to explore how CBC Housing could assist tenants to acquire and pay for white goods as part of their agreement with CBC and help them avoid exorbitant weekly charges or debt interest and the financial risks those options can lead to?

Member response

Thank you for your question. 

I’m pleased to be able to share that the Council already does a number of things to help our tenants who do not have white goods.  For example, we have our Help2 scheme and we make referrals for grants to places such as the Barnwood Trust and the Household Support Fund alongside using the Turn2us grant tool which identifies further charities and grants that our tenants may be eligible for.

In addition, our Empty Homes Team are really skilled at finding out upon viewing/sign up what the tenant may be missing and referring tenants to our benefit and money advice team so that they can look to see what help we can provide.

Last year we also ran a Home Starter pack scheme which provided those who were homeless and moving into our properties for the first time with a new home starter kit.  It included items such bedding, towels, cutlery, crockery and either a microwave, slow cooker, or air fryer.  The scheme was so successful that we have set aside enough budget within the 26/27 financial year to run it again this year.  

Please be assured that we do absolutely everything we can to support our tenants.

4.    Question from Councillor Jan Foster to Cabinet Member for Finance and Assets, Councillor Peter Jeffries

The sale of Gloucestershire Airport seems increasingly uncertain, yet earlier this month the leader of Gloucester City Council was reported as saying that “nothing has been worked out” with regard to a plan B, but options were available.

Have the councils started to work on a plan B yet and if so, what options are they considering?

Member response

Thank you for the question. Cheltenham Borough Council, alongside joint shareholder Gloucester City Council, have been unable to reach agreement with Horizon Aero Group (HAG). The councils are disappointed that we were unable to accept the terms put forward by HAG.

It is important that the shareholding councils maintain close contact with operators, tenants and stakeholders and will now explore alternative options.

As Leader, I understand and appreciate that this will be a cause for concern for all those working at the airport and for business owners who operate from there.

It would be premature to talk about alternative options until we have engaged further with the current Board and employees at the airport and had meaningful discussions with businesses and operators to listen to their views so we can draw up proposals for the way forward.

Supplementary question

It is noted that the councils are planning to consult with those directly involved with the airport about its future, but aside from the financial losses, the airport is a major contributor to noise and carbon emissions, with a wide impact.  Are there any plans to consult with the wider public on what they would like the future of the site to be?

Leader response

It is too early to say how wide the consultation will be at this stage.  CBC gave the Leader authority to sell the airport, and whatever comes next will have to be brought back to Council for approval.  Until there are some options, I cannot say what the wider consultation will be.  It’s unlikely everyone will agree, and there will always be concerns about noise and emissions, but there are businesses operating successfully from there and important to the economy.