Agenda item

Planning application documents

The Head of Planning introduced the report as published.

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

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

-       The scheme forms part of the West Cheltenham strategic allocation and it follows on from two already approved schemes. Together they demonstrate real progress in delivering this important allocation, something that the council deserves great credit for particularly in the current economic and political climate.

-       This is a really important enabling scheme. While the housing proposed is needed in its own right, it also plays a key role in unlocking the wider employment and infrastructure ambitions for Golden Valley.

-       The principle of development is largely established through the allocation. What is before the committee is precisely what policy anticipates, a coordinated and sustainable urban extension, not piecemeal development. It comes forward as part of a comprehensive master plan for the whole allocation aligned with a clear infrastructure delivery strategy.

-       It integrates effectively with the adjoining parcels, ensuring that growth is planned, coherent, and properly supported. It also provides land for a primary school and sports pitches, alongside contributions to education, and transport, including improvements to junction 10, new bus services, and strong walking and cycling links. These aren't just aspirations. They are embedded and secured by the proposal.

-       There is a clear and pressing need for housing and this scheme will deliver a significant number of new homes including 31% affordable housing with a mix that responds to identified local needs. This is a significant public benefit of the scheme.

-       A detailed design code will be secured as part of the application to give Members confidence about the quality of development that will be delivered. It is not leaving this to be resolved later.

-       Environmentally, the proposal performs well. It delivers biodiversity net gains, extensive green infrastructure, and appropriate mitigation. Natural England has confirmed there will be no adverse effects on protected sites.

-       Importantly there are no objections from statutory consultees on highways, drainage, ecology, or landscape subject to the recommended conditions within the report.

-       In planning terms, this is a sustainable development. It delivers homes, infrastructure, and environmental enhancements while supporting the wider vision for Golden Valley. Officers are clear in their recommendation. The proposal accords with the development plan, and where the policies are out of date, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies.

In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that:

-       The access to the application site from Hope Orchard Lane will be pedestrian and cycle only with no access by vehicular traffic. In the parameters plan it is identified as the indicative pedestrian access position. The existing properties in Hope Orchard will still be accessible by car, but there will not be access to the application site from this route by car.

-       As with any housing development constructed on a field that has a public right of way through it, the public right of way will need to be diverted to follow the layout of the streets where it crosses the site so there is no interruption to the public right of way. There is a footpath that runs just beyond the eastern boundary of the application site within the existing residential development, and additional linkages will be created between existing developments and the new public open space. Any issues with potential footpath diversions will need to be resolved by the developer through a separate process to divert these routes in line with the rights of way legislation. The county council may have preferences about where footpaths should go but that will be part of a separate process with a public consultation.

-       The designing out crime officer originally raised concerns based on the fact that as an outline application it does not contain the level of detail in terms of design that they would have liked. These elements will be brought forward through reserved matters applications, which will be consulted on with the police design liaison officer at that stage.

-       It is expected that odour mitigation works will be undertaken and condition 47 of the planning application prevents occupation of more than 200 dwellings before those works have been completed. Clause 48 includes a requirement for details of the work to be submitted to the council prior to occupation for approval.

-       31% of the housing will be affordable, with a split of 32% shared ownership, 39% affordable rent, 24% social rent, and 4% social supported rent units to help those with low-level mental health needs to help them move on into independence. This followed quite detailed comments for the affordable housing mix, which led to an iterative process between the applicant and council officers to find a mix that was viable and addressed housing need.

The matter then went to Member debate where the following points were made:

-       Not a huge amount wrong with the application, but it is disappointing that only 24% of the affordable housing is for social rent given local housing need.

-       The nice open green space will be a benefit for most of the sites throughout the Golden Valley.

The legal officer noted a cross-referencing error in the officer recommendation and recommended that part B be amended to read: “completion of a S106 obligation and/or other legal document to deliver the infrastructure and other mitigation, as set out in this report as per the planning obligation”.

The matter then went to the vote on the amended officer recommendation to delegate authority to the Head of Planning to permit the application subject to:

A) the conditions as set out or substantially similar as may be agreed under delegated authority given to the Head of Planning; and

B) completion of a S106 obligation and/or other legal document to deliver the infrastructure and other mitigation, as set out in this report as per the planning obligation, and for alterations to s106 heads of terms as may be agreed under delegated authority given to the Head of Planning in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Planning Committee.

C) In the event that the S106 obligation and/or other legal document remains unsigned nine months after this resolution, that the application be reviewed by the Head of Planning in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Planning Committee, and if no progress is being made delegated authority is given to the Head of Planning to refuse the application in the absence of an agreed S106 Agreement.

This resolution included, for the avoidance of doubt, that the final wording of Condition 43 be delegated to the Head of Planning as per the published update report dated 22 April 2026.

For: 9

Against: 0

Abstain: 0

Voted UNANIMOUSLY for the amended officer recommendation.