Skip to main content
Cheltenham, Gloucester and Tewkesbury Strategic and Local Plan Home

Shift to strategic planning for housing

From "Draft Vision"

Go to the project

We cannot continue to drift with housing development. Our infrastructure (schools, etc) is becoming strained. Developers are looking for cheap greenfield sites to drive their profits. There continues to be growth in population driven by the attractiveness of Gloucestershire and immigration.

Now is the time for a major attractive new settlement with state of the art infrastructure with spare capacity for future growth. This should be designed to provide the variety of homes needed, not more 4-5 bedroom houses. Lets support the young members of the society find their first homes and provide homes for the elderly to proactively encourage them to move from their existing large properties (creating space for families) into beautiful communities (at reasonable cost).

The strategic development should not be excuse for poor quality homes or infrastructure. The town should be built with a pre-defined character (like Bath does) set out through planning principles. Let's avoid a mash-mash of styles driven by developers!

A new strategic development provides a real opportunity to make healthy communities, flood protection, biodiversity and renewable energy to be by default.

Developers should be pushed to build on brownfield sites in urban areas and penalised to build in Greenfield areas through the costing model used to define their infrastructure contributions. Building in urban areas should always be the preferred choice.

Comments(10)

Commenting is not possible because this project is currently not active.
Most recent comments have loaded.
Profile of sue phillips
Posted by:sue phillips
2 years ago
Every council should know exactly what housing they need for their own population. All buildings not used or lived in should be re utilised to house people The Green Belt should be left as Green Belt including all farm land must be kept for growing our food we do not need new towns built in our countryside or building large housing estates on the edges of towns and villages. The infrastructure never seems to cope We must preserve our countryside and wild areas at all costs
  • 1 like
Profile of Ynte Lammertsma
Posted by:Ynte Lammertsma
2 years ago
@sue phillips If we're going to do this, there needs to be an understanding that we need high-density development in our urban centres. It's possible to make high quality, high-density development that looks good, but we need incentives to create this rather than luxury homes.
    Profile of James Nicholson-Smith
    Posted by:James Nicholson-Smith
    2 years ago
    I agree that the area needs a far more strategic and targetted approach. However this will only be achieved if we recognise that the total housing need in the current forecasts is flawed and massively overstated and should be reduced down to the lower level of forecast. This will allow the council to work effectively on planning what our town centres are really going to need to be like for 2040 living and they can focus on how to provide genuinely affordable housing for the jobs we really need to be done - which are almost certainly on average earnings.
      Profile of Ynte Lammertsma
      Posted by:Ynte Lammertsma
      2 years ago
      @James Nicholson-Smith I'd disagree with this. We already need more new homes, and nationally we should be building more than we need in order to bring prices down and make homes more affordable for people trying to buy their first home. We can both plan town centres and create affordable housing by increasing supply, we don't have to pick one.
        Profile of Ted Stevens
        Posted by:Ted Stevens
        2 years ago
        I'd like to see the Plan encourage more community-led (not-for-profit) development - such as cohousing, or group self-build schemes. In most of mainland Europe this is now a mainstream way of delivering new homes. There the councils allocate a portion of the housing land for community groups, the council specifies the cost of the land and the main planning parameters, and they select the community-led schemes that offer the most to the community (eg the highest proportion of affordable homes, or the most eco housing)...it's not about price, more about quality. If this is done alongside private sector development its also a way of speeding up the delivery of new housing as it generates a much wider range of properties.
          Profile of Daniel Collins
          Posted by:Daniel Collins
          2 years ago
          At this point we just need to build something. Its disgraceful Cheltenham doesn't have a 5 year housing supply.
            Profile of James Nicholson-Smith
            Posted by:James Nicholson-Smith
            2 years ago
            @Daniel Collins Cheltenham is constrained on all sides and its only viable option for additional housing comes from densification. This means a steady programme of replacing housing with appartments in the suburban areas. This has happened extensively in the South London borough of Bromley. Building something is not going to help because what will be built will still be unaffordable for anyone on average wages.
              Profile of Nigel Tingle
              Posted by:Nigel Tingle
              2 years ago
              There seem to be two unrelated, and perhaps contradictory, themes here: - A major new settlement - Building in urban areas should always be the preferred choice I agree with the first. The SLP should identify the location for the new settlement, or at least recognise that work to identify the location is the responsibility of the Councils. The chosen location should be outside the area of the River Severn Catchment Flood Management Plan ( https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c82dae5274a559005a5f6/River_Severn_Catchment_Management_Plan.pdf ), so river flood defences shouldn’t be an issue. More generally, the various documents currently being consulted on should draw upon the content of the Catchment Flood Management Plan.
                Profile of Robert Talbot
                Posted by:Robert Talbot
                2 years ago
                Fully agree with Alex yet I always hear from Councillors that their hands are tied in favour of developers. Neighbours drive their young children to the next village. Doctors are struggling and cannot attract staff. We need a joined up policy working with all the local agencies.
                  Profile of Alex
                  Posted by:Alex
                  2 years ago
                  @Robert Talbot Thanks for your support. I would suggest a strategic development would give good developers plenty of opportunities.

                    Share

                    Posted by

                    Profile of Alex Alex on 21 January 2024

                    Current status

                    received