OurTown
The Newsletter of Cheltenham Civic Society Issue 38 ● Spring 2025 YOUR REGULAR UPDATE ON HOW WE ARE WORKING TO KEEP CHELTENHAM A GREAT PLACE TO THRIVE
Eyesore transformed by Danksy
In early March, Cheltenham artist Danksy completed a commission to paint the ugly utility box next to the new WWI Battlefield Crosses Museum in the cemetery on Bouncers Lane.
“Previously, the utility box was a real eyesore,” said Civic Society Chair, Andrew Booton. “But Danksy has now made it into an integral and relevant part of the Museum’s overall attraction.”
With sponsorship from Cheltenham Borough Council (CBC) via the cemetery, Danksy created a scene featuring the iconic poppies associated
What’s in OurTown this time
with the WWI battlefields in France and Belgium, where the soldiers commemorated by their original crosses in the Museum fell in battle.
Cllr Izaac Tailford, CBC’s cabinet member for waste, recycling and public realm, said: “This stunning piece of art is a beautiful addition to the Museum and pulls notable attention to our history and those who fought for our country. Such art is a welcome contribution to our historical culture.”
Benjamin Jenkins, the cemetery manager said: “Danksy’s fabulous
Pages 2-3 Saving the Prom ● Pages 4-5 & 8
artwork has transformed the utility box and she has created something that really adds value and promotes the Battlefield Crosses Museum.
“I couldn’t have asked for a better piece of artwork to cover the box and be part of something special in our Cemetery. Great job Danksy!”
Danksy said: “It’s been an honour painting this utility box. I’ve created a mural which reflects and commemorates the soldiers who lost their lives in WWI. It’s peaceful yet eyecatching.”
Left to right: CCS trustee, Steve `Bryson; CCS Blue Plaques officer, Mike Rigby; CBC’s assistant cemetery manager, Angie Langley; CCS fundraiser, Colin Smith; and Cheltenham muralist, Danksy.
Saving the Prom from tarmac
At the end of February this year, Cheltenham Civic Society’s trustees were given just three days notice to attend a meeting on 4th March about the future of the Prom with Gloucestershire County Council (GCC). As neither of our representatives who were knowledgeable about the Prom’s paving could attend, we asked for the meeting to be moved to a date when they would be able to go.
However, GCC’s officers went ahead without us and effectively presented a fait accompli to representatives of Cheltenham Borough Council (CBC), Cheltenham BID and three of GCC’s own councillors. We learned from the minutes a day or so later that they proposed to rip up a strip of the York stone slabs outside CavHouse and replace them with coated tarmac the same material just used to resurface the Strand. They said that they could start work on the Prom in early May and, via a confidentiality clause in the minutes, asked us all to keep it quiet until they were ready to announce it.
Needless to say, we took great exception to this and, in the greater public interest, decided to bring the idea to the public’s attention by campaigning against the proposal.
Extensive coverage in Gloucestershire Live and the Echo swiftly followed and we quickly set up an online petition to gain a good measure of the public’s opposition to the idea. More than 2,000 people signed the petition in just two weeks, during which we also approached one of the national amenity societies, The Georgian Group, to add their weight to our campaign.
After two weeks, GCC thought better of their idea – possibly realising that the public were strongly opposed to the scheme and maybe it wasn’t such a good idea to try to force it through during their local elections.
So they called another meeting, which this time was held on the Prom (not in a committee room in Shire Hall, Gloucester as before) and which we could attend. At that meeting, GCC agreed to put a hold on their tarmac proposal while we all contributed to further research and then considered alternative proposals.
CCS Chair Andrew Booton stands in front of the strip of York stone flagstones that the County Council wanted to tarmac.
The recent resurfacing of the Strand – which started looking very grubby within days.
OurTown • Spring 2025
So, we have succeeded in putting a stop to the tarmac plan for now and the Civic Society’s trustees have decided to put our planned strategic campaign activities to one side while an acceptable solution is sought.
But what happens next?
It’s thought that Cheltenham BID will be looking at the various markets that are held on the Prom and what the retailers and café/restaurants operators think of them.
The two councils’ officers – particularly the Highway Authority’s (GCC’s) – will no doubt be thinking about the feasibility of restoring the York stone properly and restricting vehicle access for unloading/loading market stalls and sheds. (NB: they have already installed bollards at the southern end matching those installed at the northern end two years ago, but with two of them being foldable and lockable.)
Meanwhile Civic Society members have undertaken a survey of all the slabs in the strip identified by GCC for replacement by tarmac. They found that all but 9% of them were still in good condition. Making the replacement cost considerably less than the cost that GCC has feared.
We shall also be looking at presenting our preferred options for the eventual solution.
What we will be focusing on in particular is to ensure that the Highway Authority properly respects the Central Conservation Area setting and includes appropriate and thorough consultation with the public, key stakeholders (such as CCS and Cheltenham BID), and especially with the retailers and café/ restaurant operators in that part of the Promenade.
Only that will meet the County Council’s responsibilities under Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 – the relevant details of which are covered in the following pages.
Steve Bryson, Trustee & Editor ●
Questions and answers
What happens when the CavHouse redevelopment eventually comes forward?
When that happens and, if construction access will be necessary from the Prom, CBC could easily add a planning condition to ensure the slabs are lifted respectfully, carefully stored and then properly reinstated at the end of the project.
NB: They should also ensure that all future delivery access for the scheme is from Regent Street County Court Road.
WhatThe Georgian Group said about GCC’s initialtarmac plan:
“The Georgian Group are concerned to learn of plans to resurface part of Cheltenham's historic Promenade, replacing existing characterful York stone slab paving with asphalt tarmac.
“The Promenade is a highly important historic thoroughfare in Cheltenham’s excellent Regency townscape, and the traditional stone slab paving contributes strongly to its historic character as part of the Cheltenham Central Conservation Area and to the setting of several listed buildings.
“Replacing the flagstones with tarmac will consequently dilute and erode the historic character and significance of both the Promenade and the wider conservation area.
“We hope that Gloucestershire County Council and Cheltenham Borough Council will work positively with Cheltenham Civic Society and other stakeholders to review the scheme and develop a sustainable solution to maintaining the Promenade, giving due regard to the local authorities’ legal duty to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Promenade as part of the Cheltenham Central Conservation Area.”
Is the tarmac option really more sustainable than York stone?
It would be amazing if it was as tarmac is now an oil-based product that needs maintenance and future replacement. We think this claim arose out of the assumption that replacement stone would have to be sourced from China, so shipping would be a big factor.
In contrast, York stone has been naturally formed over many millennia and, being highly durable, will require very little maintenance over a lifetime of hundreds of years – providing, of course, it is laid properly and heavy vehicles are not allowed to turn on it. You only have to visit historic cities, such as York, Lancaster, Oxford and Bath to see how well it fares over extended periods of time!
Has the Prom always been paved by York stone?
The above photo of a poster hanging on the staircase inside Waterstones shows that the wide pavements outside the same terrace of shops was paved in York stone (or similar) in 1907.
However, the existing York stone slabs were paid for by Stakis Land & Estates as part of its planning agreement to restore the terrace in the late 1980s. Then CBC used the funds to pedestrianise the area in 1988 – as the slab pictured above records. ●
The duty to preserve or enhance our conservation areas
Conservation areas were established by the Civic Amenities Act 1967. That legislation was refined by Section 277 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, which was itself replaced by the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. In this article. Andrew Booton considers the duty placed on any individual or party regarding conservation areas under Section 72 (S72) of the 1990 Act.
S72 – General duty as respects conservation areas in exercise of planning functions.
(1) In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, of any functions under or by virtue of any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2), special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.
In English law, a duty is an obligation imposed on an individual or entity that must be complied with. It requires a certain standard to be met and it implies that the law will enforce the duty for the benefit of those to whom the duty is owed.
Unlike its sister clause S66 that relates to listed buildings, S72 is written to apply generally. It could be construed as placing the duty not solely on the local planning authority but on anyone whose actions are likely to affect the conservation area. That includes the Highway Authority, statutory undertakers (utility companies), home/ property owners, developers and so on.
The courts have determined that ‘preserving’ means doing no harm.
Preserving a conservation area means ensuring it remains identifiable and in such condition that its special character and high quality are maintained – for that is the reason it was identified as worthy of conserving in the first place.
Enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area means that it is not enough to preserve it in its present state but that its conservation quality should be improved. That means taking every opportunity to mend damaged fabric and remove inappropriate materials as well as ensuring new design is in keeping with the character of the area. That needn’t mean solely traditional styles either – see the examples below.
New buildings in Cheltenham that have enhanced the conservation areas, have raised standards and made a net improvement to the setting:
A decidedly and unapologetically modern building but so well detailed and proportioned that it sits comfortably in the Bayshill Character Area alongside its host Grade II* listed building.
99-101 London Road
A traditional-style infill that mended the damage left by an inappropriate tyre depot in the middle of a Grade II listed terrace.
The Broadwalk
This sensitively mended the site of the former Mann Egerton garage and finished the corner of the almost entirely Grade II* Imperial Square.
38-62 Montpellier Spa
Road
This mended the opposite side, facing Montpellier Gardens and abutting a Grade II listed terrace.
Parabola Arts Centre
10 Queen’s Parade
This completes and bookends an early Victorian Grade II listed terrace. Its architectural and built quality is so high that it is indiscernible from the original.
I think recent failures (poor practice) have included:
354, 356 and 358 High Street (22/02040/COU) These were three characterful shops on lower High Street with original Victorian shopfront details. The brickwork and lintels were rendered and all shopfronts and sash windows were ripped out and replaced by inappropriate uPVC casement windows. CCS objections were not heeded and the Case Officer failed to mention, let alone expect, compliance with S72.
The former HSBC on Bath Road
This was permitted by CBC. The Officer Report said: ‘The existing building does not have an active street frontage at ground floor and, given that no external changes to the building are proposed, no material harm would be caused to the character or sustainability of the conservation area as a result of the proposed change of use.’ At no
point did CBC appear to apply the duty to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area, just that it was no worse than already existed. That is a fundamental failure.
401-403 High Street
A multi-coloured block of flats over shops which replaced a single storey shop on a prominent gateway site. The Planning Officer’s report reads: ‘The proposed design is contemporary in appearance and given the variety of building types within the locality, this is considered to be acceptable. The Conservation Officer has been actively involved in discussions on this proposed development and considers the approach to be correct for this site.’ I was disappointed that the Civic Society apparently supported this approach. I am also concerned that the only reference to the 1990 Act is for S15 to be complied with (work starting within five years)!
Dowty House, St Margaret’s Road
The worst new building in Cheltenham and ‘winner’ of the 2023 UnCivic Award. The Officer Report cited S72(1) but considered that the housing supply, removal of the ‘incongruous’ 1960s extension, the conservation of Dowty House itself and the construction jobs for the conversion outweighed the less than substantial harm to the conservation area. We now know that to be wholly unjustifiable, so what lessons are the planning department learning from such examination or are
we the only group identifying and learning lessons?
The Black & White site
The Officer Report does not cite the 1990 Act as a reference. Historic England, Cheltenham Civic Society and the Conservation Officer raised concerns about compliance with S72 but the report fails to pay the special attention required. Thus the harm to the conservation area was inadequately addressed – and it will be considerable with the redevelopment of such a significant site.
One sensible use of S72
131 Promenade
One recent occasion the duty was recognised and applied sensibly and consistently was the case of the tents at 131 Promenade.
Sections 66 and 72 of the 1990 Act were the Planning Inspector’s starting point at the first appeal, as both sections were pertinent and he wove his assessment around their provisions.
Unfortunately, however, despite the strength of the Officer Report, the same diligence was not demonstrated by CBC’s Planning Committee when the last application was made for permanent structures to the front of 131. Shouldn’t that be instructive to Cheltenham’s planners, architects and developers?
Continued on page 8 >>>
A WALK AROUND PITTVILLE
Celebrating our town in the spring sunshine
>>> continued from page 5
Lessons Identified
f The operative word is DUTY. One has to do it.
f Public awareness needs to be raised about individual property owners’ duties in conservation areas. I am certain that lack of knowledge is what has led to the death by a thousand cuts of the Poets’ Conservation Area.
f Higher expectations need to be set for Planning Officers and conservation officers in applying the duties under the Act’s provisions consistently and routinely, and testing their efficacy.
f Greater weight should be placed on all applicants and owners of properties in CAs to demonstrate their understanding of and compliance with S72. Far higherquality applications must demonstrate proper and honest consideration of their impacts.
f More effective training and interest of officers and the Planning Committee in heritage matters, especially their duties towards heritage assets and conservation areas. One councillor at the Pittville Pump Room orangery Planning Committee meeting said he didn’t understand why the Grade I listing had any relevance to the application! That is simply incredible and unacceptable.
f Lessons need to be learned from reviewing applications and planning processes against the finished result, as I have done here at a high level, as part of a continuous improvement approach to the town’s planning.
f Planning applications should not be allowed to be submitted in stages. Indeed, they should sound alarm bells in the Planning Department and efforts made to engage with applicants to produce a single comprehensive and coherent application.
f These negatives illustrate the concept of ‘death by a thousand cuts’, in which many small cuts and degradations over time add up to massive loss overall. This ‘salami slicing’ is probably the greatest threat to our conservation areas and happens through the tacit cooperation of planners: it is my belief that this is what has happened to the Lower High Street. CBC must resist the urge to permit small, apparently insignificant cuts and must enforce diligently to correct inappropriate, unjustified and un-permitted changes.
f CBC’s imminent Conservation Area review is long overdue, having not been conducted for 18 years for almost all areas. (While not stipulated by S69(2) of the Act, it is broadly accepted that CAs should be reviewed every five to six years. So Cheltenham is three reviews overdue!) That review must address the present state of the conservation areas and how they are to be protected from now on –or redrawn to exclude areas that have been so disastrously compromised that they cannot reasonably be recovered. Those areas that remain must then be safeguarded far more effectively than they have been over the past two decades – and that comes from exercising the duty properly.
Andrew Booton, CCS Chair ●
Tracey Birkinshaw, director of community & economic development at CBC, said: “As the local planning authority, we are required to assess all planning applications on their individual merits. Conservation and heritage considerations are among a wide range of factors we must balance during the decision-making process.
“Planning decisions are rarely straightforward, the planning team navigate complex and often competing, constraints and opportunities. It is not uncommon for opinions to differ, especially on matters that are inherently subjective, such as design and architectural style. Our experienced and professional planning team reflect on lessons learned to continuously improve our processes, with this learning embedded in the training provided to our Planning Committee.
“Our processes are reviewed as required. Our validation checklist has recently been updated, and we are currently reviewing our approach to pre-application advice. Plans are underway to undertake a comprehensive review of the conservation areas, and we have already engaged with CCS to help shape the scope of this work. We are also working collaboratively with them on developing a Heritage Strategy.
“CBC welcomes active engagement from our communities and encourages representations on planning applications. These comments are carefullyconsidered bythe Case Officerand form part ofthe widerassessment byPlanning Committee as required,which is taskedwithweighing up allrelevant factors.
“Design, architecture, and the impact of development on the character of an area are inherently subjective matters. A building which may not align with the CCS’s aesthetic preferences may be valued by others. This diversity of opinion is a natural part of planning.
“While design is an important factor, it is one of many that must be weighed in the overall balance. For these reasons, CBC does not endorse CCS’s ‘Un-Civic’ awards, which are based on subjective judgements and do not reflect the breadth and complexity of the planning process.” ●
‘English Devolution’white paper
Before Christmas, the government published its ‘English Devolution’ white paper. We’ve added quotes to that term as it’s simply not about devolution but more about local government reform. Though not party political, we operate in the political environment so we think it’s worth looking at the implications for us. OurTown • Spring 2025
The government is proposing unitary authorities to serve populations of about 500,000 – e.g. Gloucestershire –and ‘will look at’ the case for strengthening communities with greater rights to be involved in their local issues. Civic pride gets a mention to address decline of neighbourhoods and high streets and BIDs will be strengthened. Powers will be introduced to take over vacant residential premises. High Street Rental Auctions will press on and Right to Buy will replace Right to Bid.
What are the implications for our local government?
Contrary to the government’s stated aims, accountability and responsibility will move further upwards and away from residents with decision-making taken further from the area of interest.
The push to amalgamate district and county councils, then the push to form unitary authorities will inevitably take up a huge amount of effort, taking the focus away from front line outputs.
The main effort of existing county councils is education and social care, while the main effort of existing district/borough councils is planning and environment. But where will that effort be focused after reorganisation? It’s likely to be the big spender of social care at the expense of planning and the other functions that local people need for their day-to-day lives.
Finance will, of course, be the key issue. However, the Institute for Government says efficiency savings from merged functions is likely to be limited and any savings are likely to be taken up by the costs of reorganisation and long-term change programmes. No mention is made of spiralling costs, including huge public sector pension liabilities and adult social care costs.
What are the implications for the civic movement?
The right to buy instead of just right to bid, acknowledgement of the desire to improve options for deteriorating high streets and potential to reuse empty premises seem like good news, subject to greater detail. But this cannot compensate for decisionmaking, access and representation moving further away from the people, rather than closer to them. That will not improve trust in politics.
Similarly, centralisation of functions will dilute local knowledge and appreciation, particularly for the likes of conservation officers, planning officers and heritage management. The penchant for more remote working is likely to generate more reliance on desktop analysis instead of well-walked knowledge and understanding of local areas.
So what?
In the absence of informed debate, we need to play a leading part in the national conversation. Unlike green papers, white papers are not consultative, so the civic movement needs to help make the changes work. Actions could include:
f Strengthening Civic Voice’s regional and county networks to help share problems and good practice, and to reinforce local voices.
f Creating a mechanism to feed information between these groups and into the national level conversation, ideally rebuilding the very useful All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Civic Societies to ensure messages are passed effectively into Westminster.
f Reviewing and refining the role of Civic Voice and how it can have the maximum impact. Fresh eyes at the
top of the organisation should help with that aspiration.
f Establishing a Civic Voice advisory group to lead on this subject. Membership might include former council officers who have been involved with the creation of unitary or mayoral authorities, strategic level planners, people with an interest in government systems, especially planning (rural not just urban), conservation, heritage management and the environment.
f Forging partnerships with other organisations to encourage joint problem solving and mutual support as we all come to terms with evolving threats and opportunities.
In conclusion, the trend of centralising functions and decision-making processes risks alienating local communities and eroding trust in politics.
Initiatives like the right to buy and improving high street options offer some positive developments, but they do not fully address the challenges of representation and local knowledge. For a truly effective civic movement, it is essential that we lead informed debates and ensure our voices are not just heard, but actively considered in the reorganisation process.
This white paper is not about reform, just reorganisation. That will not bring democracy closer to the people but push it further away, diminishing their influence and the local knowledge that underpins effective decision making. This is not good for English democracy but the civic movement gives us strength and knowledge that we hope can improve the offer.
Andrew Booton, CCS Chair ●
Parmoor update
We always knew that our renovation of a building of this size was going to be slightly problematic, not least as it had been in commercial use for over half its life and commercial occupiers tend to abuse and neglect buildings. And, of course, the 1926 fire was part of that story.
After a year-long wait to secure planning and listed building consents led to us falling foul of pointless financial contributions to beech woods in another council’s area, inflation then hit 10% – requiring significant re-costing.
On top of all that, Parmoor’s sister building (they were built as a pair), 27 Cambray Place suffered serious structural failure that threatened to bring the building down.
That was not due to ground conditions so Parmoor is not under threat in that respect but the absence of internal walls as a result of the fire meant that any toppling of number 27’s masonry could well do serious damage to Parmoor.
weatherproof. That would also prevent the dry rot on the front wall being sustained, enabling it to dry out in preparation for chemical treatment.
Since then, however, we have suffered from two named storms as part of a long, wet winter. So although the builders did their best to tarp the roof, it is highly likely we will find water ingress when we can finally access the site again.
This is hugely frustrating but due to the risks and our professional advice, we have had no choice but to make the most of our time in preparation. We will be making a claim against the owners of 27 Cambray Place since its threats have had a significant effect on our works, budget and progress.
To address the climbing costs, we have recut our works programme to follow a ‘shell and core’ approach.
The first phase will create a core with services and subdivisions. Subsequent phases will then fit out the shell with the flats, the Society’s own spaces and complete the external works.
Local funeral directors Mason & Stokes step in to sponsor new WWI Battlefield Crosses Museum website
The leading Cheltenham funeral directors, Mason & Stokes, have agreed to sponsor a new website for the WWI Battlefield Crosses Museum over the next five years.
The website will tell the story of all of the crosses, how they came to Cheltenham’s cemetery and were conserved with the aid of a National Lottery Heritage Fund grant and then installed in the new museum before its opening last September.
In particular, the website will publish all the individual stories – as researched by students of Pittville School – that the crosses commemorate. QR codes, to be fixed to signage below each cross in the museum, will then take visitors directly to the page containing the individual story of each soldier.
CCS member and fundraiser, Colin Smith, was instrumental in organising the sponsorship. He has now succeeded in raising more than £14,000 from local donors for the museum. Those funds have enabled the museum’s building to be refurbished and the display of original First World War grave-marker crosses to be hung alongside supporting information panels.
Consequently, our builders had to leave the site at very short notice and on health and safety grounds have not yet been permitted to return .
They were working on repairing the roof, the front parapet and the chimneys to make the building
Once the building is accessible and safe, we will be inviting members to visit the site so that they can see it for themselves.
Andrew Booton, CCS Chair ●
As you will have seen on page 1 of this edition of OT, local artist, Danksy, has recently painted a mural on the utility box next to the museum to convert the eyesore into an attractive and relevant work of art. ●
AGM reminder for members OurTown • Spring 2025
Cheltenham Civic Society’s AGM will be held at 7pm on Wednesday 30th April at the New Club. ●
OurTown • Spring 2025
Around Town : STREET ART
Key contacts
Andrew Booton Chairman chair@cheltcivicsoc.org
Hugh Curran Membership Secretary membership@cheltcivicsoc.org
Steve Bryson Editor of OurTown comms@cheltcivicsoc.org
Enquiries
enquiries@cheltcivicsoc.org
Cheltenham Civic Society
https://cheltcivicsoc.org
Follow us on Twitter and Instagram @cheltcivicsoc and on Facebook.com/cheltenhamcivicsociety
Registered charity No. 1166580
https://cheltcivicsoc.org
NB: Individual points of view expressed by correspondents in OurTown should not be taken as being representative of Cheltenham Civic Society CIO.
Photo and image credits
PAGE 1: Danksy mural – Danksy’s sister
2-3: The Prom – Editor
4-8: Conservation Areas – Editor
6-7: Our town in the sunshine – Editor 10: Parmoor CGI – EDW 11: AroundTown – CathyPresland 12: Masonic hall– Editor; Circumspice 18 – Mike Rigby
Artwork and layout by the Editor Printing arranged by Art Works Design
Harlech and his human pose in front of Nina Pelirroja’s gable-end painting in Newton Road for the 2024 Paint Festival.
Blue Plaque approval
On behalf of the Masonic Hall in Portland Street, the Civic Society has successfully obtained Listed Building Consent to fix a blue plaque next to the hall’s main entrance,
The plaque will commemorate the architect and freemason, George Allen
Underwood, who designed and built the hall in 1823 and was responsible for a number of other important buildings in Cheltenham. It will be manufactured in the coming weeks and installed on the building later this spring.
Mike Rigby, Blue Plaques ●
Where in the town is this prefab? Why is it unusual and what is the connection to the World War II Blenheim bomber? Rig
The answers to this mini quiz* can be found on the Society’s website: cheltcivicsoc.org/category/news
*Unfortunately there are no prizes!
We are proud to be supported by the following companies and organisations.
MASONIC HALL, PORTLAND STREET