Cheltenham Civic Society (CCS) respects the Planning Committee’s decision on ‘131’.
The Society particularly commends the diligence of Cheltenham Borough Council’s planning officers in producing a comprehensive, balanced and objective report to guide the Committee. While we are disappointed that the Planning Committee did not ultimately align with the officers’ recommendations, we recognise the challenges involved in such decisions.
CCS remains committed to advocating for improved planning training for councillors – particularly those serving on the Planning Committee – in the hope that future deliberations will more appropriately reflect the depth and quality of the professional advice provided.
Julian Dunkerton spoke with passion about his investments and aspirations for both his business and the town. There is no doubt about his commitment and appreciation of Cheltenham’s heritage and potential, which we support wholeheartedly. And his renovation of these important buildings was appropriately recognised when we awarded his business a Civic Award.
But we have been consistent in our opposition to the obstruction of the fine façades of his three Grade II* Regency villas firstly by the marquees and soon by the permanent awning-covered structure in front of their principal elevations. There is no precedent for building to the front of any buildings, especially important listed buildings in the Conservation Area in one of the most prominent locations and in probably the most prestigious square in town.
CCS was not alone in expressing these concerns. Historic England (the government’s statutory adviser on the historic environment), the Georgian Group (the national authority on Georgian architecture and a statutory consultee as one of the National Amenity Societies), and the Cheltenham Architects’ Panel shared our position. We had all recommended development to the rear of the buildings, which would have achieved the same end but with a much-reduced impact on the important setting.
The Civic Society fears that the potential precedent identified in the officers’ report has now become fact and that in future others will cite it to justify their own proposals for extending or building standalone structures in front of their properties.
So we will watch with interest and concern what happens next. We look forward to the tents going and we hope that the promise will be delivered for the permanent structures.