The Cheltenham Borough Council Planning Committee met on 21 August 2025 and approved applications relating to the Pittville Pump Room and 41 Hales Close, and noted an appeal update. The committee approved the temporary use of land for a trailer/vehicle as a servery at the Pittville Pump Room and approved extensions and alterations at 41 Hales Close.

Here's a breakdown of the key discussions:

Planning Applications

The committee considered two planning applications:

Pittville Pump Room, East Approach Drive - 25/00380/FUL

The committee considered an application for the temporary change of use of land for the siting of a trailer/vehicle as a servery, and retention of ancillary mobile toilets and store, plus over-cladding of toilets and store. Councillor Barbara Clark declared an interest as a trustee on the Cheltenham Trust Board and left the chamber for this item.

The planning officer presented the application with a recommendation to permit, subject to conditions. The officer confirmed that the conservation officer would need to see the details of the food trailer before it was agreed. They also confirmed that it would not be appropriate for the discharge of conditions application to come back to the planning committee for review.

Members debated the application, raising concerns about the lack of detail regarding the type of vehicle and positioning of tables and chairs adjacent to a Grade 1 listed building¹. Some members argued that the council should be trying to preserve the outlook to the very best of its ability. Other members noted that the original café application had been rejected, and the Trust had been looking for ways to minimise the substantial loss of income. They felt that residents and visitors enjoyed having a refreshments area in this location, and that the proposal was worth supporting.

The committee voted to permit the application, with 6 in support, 1 against, and 1 abstention.

2-20 Grevil Road, 44-64 Orchard Way and 210-228 Arle Road - 25/01013/FUL

The case officer presented the application with a recommendation to permit. There were no public speakers, questions, or debate on this item. The committee voted unanimously in support of the application.

11 Hamilton Street, Charlton Kings - 25/00637/FUL

The officer presented the application with a recommendation to permit, subject to conditions.

A neighbour spoke in objection, raising concerns about the impact of the proposal on parking, which they said was already a dire situation. They also argued that the proposal was overdevelopment, not in keeping with the locality, and would severely impact privacy, particularly for residents of Oakland Street. The neighbour stated that the proposal was contrary to the Local Plan, Supplementary Planning Document, and GCC Manual for Streets.

In response to questions, the officer confirmed that the second highways comment raised no objection, noting that drivers currently park on the highway and the proposal would not create a situation that doesn't already exist. The officer was unable to comment on whether highways officers conducted a site visit when assessing the application, and stated that it was not possible to include a condition removing the right of residents to apply for parking permits in the area.

During the debate, one member suggested that the decision should be deferred, arguing that the highways comments did not match the reality of the site, and that the impact on wheelchair and pushchair users did not appear to have been addressed in the report. The Head of Planning stated that the only planning reason for deferral is lack of sufficient information to make a decision, which wasn't the case here. The legal officer confirmed that disappointment with highways comments were not grounds for deferral.

The committee voted against the motion to defer, with 1 in support and 8 in objection.

The debate continued, with some members arguing that the proposal would provide much-needed accommodation for young people, while others felt that it was a fantasy to suggest that the proposal wouldn't have a significant impact, and that there were better ways to provide affordable housing without impacting on an existing neighbourhood.

The case officer stated that the application was accompanied by Transport Note 3, relating to the pre-app and previous scheme, and providing details of discussions with highways officers referred to in the report. She said that the previous scheme was for seven new houses, and highways officers suggested at the pre-app stage that no additional parking was needed as the number of vehicles associated with the existing commercial use, if operational, was equivalent to what would be created by seven new dwellings.

The committee voted to permit the application, with 6 in support, 1 in objection, and 2 abstentions.

The Nurseries, Kidnappers Lane, Leckhampton - 25/00848/FUL

The case officer presented the application with a recommendation to permit, subject to conditions. The Chair, Councillor Garth Barnes, expressed disappointment that the member who called the application in was not present to explain the reasons for the call-in.

A landscape architect spoke in support of the application, stating that replacing the existing stable block would enhance the landscape, and that the new stable block would not interfere with general views from the Public Rights of Way (PROW).

In response to questions, the officer confirmed that no discussion took place with the applicant about redeveloping the existing stable block structures, and that the application was assessed as greenbelt development.

There was no further debate, and the committee voted unanimously in support of the application.

Scout Head Quarters, 207 Leckhampton Road - 25/00788/FUL

The officer introduced the application, recommending that permission be granted, subject to conditions. Councillor Barnes repeated his concern that the member who called the application in to committee wasn't in attendance.

A neighbour spoke in objection, raising concerns about the siting of the proposed building and the potential for noise and disruption. A resident spoke in support, stating that the development was necessary to continue the provision of a valuable service, and that the scout group was a responsible neighbour.

There were no member questions.

Members commented that the report was balanced, reasonable and rational, and that there were no planning grounds to refuse the application.

The committee voted unanimously to permit the application.

Appeal Update

The committee noted an appeal update, which had been circulated. The update included information on appeals received, appeals being processed, and appeals decided.

Of particular note were the decisions on appeals relating to:

• 5 Merriville Gardens, where an appeal against refusal of alterations and extensions to an existing house was dismissed.
• Land opposite Ham Close, where an appeal against refusal of outline planning permission for the erection of up to 5 self-build dwellings was dismissed.
• 52 River Leys, where an appeal against refusal for the erection of a single dwelling was allowed.

Other Business

There was no other business.