OurTown
The Newsletter of Cheltenham Civic Society Issue 37 ● Winter 2025
Crunch time soon for 131
One of the most controversial planning applications in recent times will be coming up before the Borough Council’s Planning Committee in the early months of 2025.
The applicant – Julian Dunkerton’s Lucky Onion restaurant and hotel company – is proposing to erect a number of large restaurant pavilions directly in front of three of Cheltenham’s finest Grade II* Regency villas.
The pavilions would be glazed and adorned by ornate metalwork replicating elements found on the balconies of the town’s Regency buildings.
What’s in
2-3
Lucky Onion has also submitted an alternative plan for permanent awning structures to cover diners on the forecourts.
Cheltenham Civic Society, along with many others – including the government’s national heritage organisation, Historic England – have submitted strong objections to the two schemes.
The main objection grounds centre around the fact that both designs will obscure the very fine buildings behind. Those are buildings that lie in the heart of the town’s Central Conservation Area and make up much of the most impressive
side of Imperial Square – which in itself forms one of Cheltenham’s crown jewels. Cheltenham’s Planning Committee will soon have to decide whether or not one or other of the two schemes are acceptable. Such a critical decision –which will affect the town for decades to come – should not be influenced by a popularity contest. It should instead be decided on the planning merits.
There is no greater heritage authority in the country than Historic England. So when they say that the 131 schemes will significantly diminish our heritage, we should all sit up and believe them. ●
This image – taken from a high viewpoint – still shows how much one of the three restaurant pavilions would obscure. From a more realistic viewpoint – such as one that the man in the foreground would see – only part of the top floors of the villas would be visible.
SUCCESSFUL STREETS GROUP
(SSG)
2024 – how did we do?
SSG is the public realm forum of CCS. Therefore, our attention is focused on the overall state of Cheltenham’s public spaces, particularly the town centre.
A MIXED BAG OF RESULTS
Cheltonians have gradually grown used to mediocrity in the public realm. Tacky bins, commercial bins outside restaurants 24/7, uneven and cracked pavements, tarmac infills and, of course, graffiti are just some of SSG’s concerns.
Excellence, high standards and appreciation of elegance need to displace slipshod workmanship and unmonitored work of utility companies. Both councils (Borough and County) need to pay much more attention to the standard of works being carried out by their contractors and the utility companies.
Cheltenham relies heavily on footfall from its large catchment area and from tourism. Despite that, we have no tourist office and the public realm remains shoddy!
The Civic Society seems to be the only group pushing for higher standards –or perhaps I should say, normal standards.
WINS:
Starting with the small wins, we are pleased to say that the ‘Cheltenham Pod’ has finally disappeared from the High Street. It was ugly, useless and
locked most of the time – an eyesore which served no purpose and was frankly ridiculous, taking up space and breaking up the streetscape.
We are also pleased to see that BT will
be removing its ‘phone boxes’ beyond John Lewis – the oversized installations that have blocked lines of
sight and blighted the High Street for years. They acted as nothing more than revenue-generating billboards for BT. There was no other justification for these ugly metal fixtures to remain.
It’s good that CBC are actively pursuing the removal of the ‘enclosed’ metal phone boxes that act as drug centres and a surface for graffiti.
But CBC took almost no interest in GCC’s plans to lay a paved road straight through the Promenade outside Cavendish House. However, we intervened and instead of a dreadful highway, the pedestrianised York Stone area will remain.
To force GCC to acknowledge their responsibilities for named sections of roads and pavements in Cheltenham and compel them to bring the public realm into good repair, CCS served a ‘Section 56’ notice on the council. As a result, GCC has now accepted its responsibilities and work has begun on the repair of the paving on the Promenade by removing all tarmac infills and re-laying York Stone slabs to match the originals.
Due to the pressure we have brought to bear, GCC have also revised their policies to ensure that: a) utility companies must prove before undertaking any street works that they have correct, suitable reinstatement stone and; b) that no further tarmac infills occur. However, we note that GCC are already in breach of that policy as they still carry out repairs with tarmac. Graffiti – we fought against the mural
that was applied to a Grade II listed building without consent. It was a case where retrospective consent had to be sought: another case of “at least it’s better than what was there before” being heard. This depressing attitude can be traced back to the aforementioned acceptance of mediocrity and the lowering of our sights.
All this raises the question as to why we, SSG, have to constantly pursue both councils in order to achieve the normal level of upkeep? Should not CBC be crawling all over these issues and working with GCC in order to make Cheltenham as elegant as it once was – and should still be?
We always seem to be complaining, but we wouldn’t complain at all if things were done properly first time and if each of the councils took a proper interest in the aspects of this town that make it special.
A BETTER WAY
The answer to all of the above issues is for the oft-discussed Cheltenham Town Centre Forum (CTCF) to be established without delay. Briefly, CTCF will have significant benefits for all parties – councils, police, residents and businesses. So far, the idea is being resisted, God alone knows why. It could bring efficiencies, avoid duplication, remove friction, keep a track of key issues and allow both councils to avail –at no cost – of the voluntary sector’s vast range of skills and expertise. At any one time, there are a finite number of issues in Cheltenham and these could be catalogued and dealt with in a cooperative way – rather than the current antagonistic way.
Hugh Curran, SSG Chair ●
When will the John Lewis paving be fixed?
Readers will know that Cheltenham Borough Council (CBC) paid for the paving outside John Lewis to be relaid in 2018 as part of the Council’s effort to attract John Lewis and improve that shabby part of the High Street. The works were undertaken under a S278 Agreement with Gloucestershire County Council (GCC).
Due to quality issues with the work identified after completion, the final stage of the S278 has yet to be signed off.
CBC has taken core samples from under the paving and sought both specialist and legal advice. Although the contractor went bankrupt and is now trading as Atkins Realis, there is professional indemnity so CBC is actively engaged in a legal case against them.
Six years on from John Lewis’s opening, GCC still won’t adopt this section of the highway due to the S278 issue. In fact, GCC has been advised not to touch the paving so that they don’t invite any liability. So GCC appears to be staying clear of the area as it gears up to resurface the Strand.
GCC separately told us in December that it will be resurfacing the Strand early in the new year. This work will start on Monday 13th January and be finished by the end of February.
Meanwhile, utility companies are still being allowed to wreak havoc in the prestigious John Lewis area of the High Street with their ugly tarmac cowpats –Openreach, we understand, having created the huge patch pictured above,
To give both councils an opportunity to explain what their plans are to resolve these issues, we asked both of them for their comments.
Cheltenham Civic Society says: “This mess needs to be sorted out. It is having an adverse knock-on effect on the work to bring the public realm in our town centre back up to scratch.
“As the root cause of the delays lie between CBC and GCC, the two councils need to resolve it. Quickly!” ●
CBC’s Leader, Rowena Hay, said:
“Our vision for the high street, outside the area of John Lewis, was to bring benefit to local shops, businesses and visitors. This has been achieved with new paving, seating, and planters, bringing significant enhancements to this part of the high street and greenery into the heart of the town centre. This was a significant investment and reinforced our continued commitment to support the vibrancy of our town centre.The phase 1 works were delivered through a number of contractors and in the monitoring of the works post-delivery, issues were identified which to date have prevented the space being adopted by GCC. The council has proactively sought to rectify issues identified, however this has led to a legal case in respect of these works which takes time to resolve.The legal case is expected to conclude in 2025.”
A spokesperson for GCC said:
“We understand the Civic Society’s keenness for these issues to be solved, however we know that damage is regularly caused by delivery vehicles or by utility works. Sadly, the legislation doesn’t require utility companies to make repairs within timescales that ideally, we would all like to see and at times utilities companies also don’t always make repairs as they should. We do however monitor these repairs and take action where appropriate, as the Civic Society are already aware, we are working hard to increase our efforts to hold them to account on this. Aesthetics in our town centres are very important to all of us and we work closely with CBC to ensure that our role in keeping the highway safely maintained and usable for the public is balanced with the aspirations for Cheltenham and its proud heritage.”
The paving outside John Lewis – yet to be adopted six years after being laid.
STOP PRESS: Openreach has just made a partial repair.
DELIVERY OF NEW HOUSING
What’s all the fuss about the NPPF?
In July last year, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) put out a consultation paper on its proposed revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Then, in December, the government published its responses to all the feedback it received –including ours.
The headline message of the consultation was the challenging target to deliver 1.5mnew homes this parliament.
But there is more, and Cheltenham Civic Society’s (CCS’s) consultation response – prepared by its Planning Forum – can be found on the Downloads page of our website: https://cheltcivicsoc.org/downloads/
The proposals:
While there is quite a long list of changes, the main ones that are likely to impact Cheltenham and the surrounding areas are the following requirements for local authorities:
f To plan for new housing targets The supplementary documents show an increase in the housing targets for Cheltenham Borough Council from 454 to 830 (+83%). Within this there will be an increased focus on ‘affordable’ housing.
f To broaden the definition of brownfield sites and set the expectations that applications for development of these sites will be approved.
f To identify ‘Grey Belt’ land and sites, which are degraded areas within the green belt, to be brought into the planning system for development needs.
f To allow selective development of Green Belt land if it delivers a ‘public interest’.
f To support green energy and renewables.
At this stage, at least, no changes are proposed in policy affecting the built
heritage, notably arrangements for Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas.
Civic Society response:
We encourage members to read both our full response and our position paper (see link to the left). There are some welcome aspects but also some worrying proposals that could weaken planning at the local level. We have highlighted these in our response.
1. Things CCS liked:
f We welcome the increased emphasis on the importance of upto-date plans to set direction for development.
f We strongly welcome the role given to strategic and regional planning. Cheltenham’s administrative boundaries do not completely align with its geographic boundaries and many areas for new housing, for example, fall outside the borough council. CBC is already engaged in a strategic planning process with its neighbouring authorities and we made the point that these new housing targets should be able to be met at a sub-regional level for exactly these reasons.
f We welcome the ‘brownfield first’ policy, although we think this could be extended to an ‘urban first’ definition to allow existing properties no longer in demand for commercial use, above shops or in other locations, to be converted for housing.
2. Things we thought were missing:
f A genuine commitment to ‘sustainable’ development, which
could have included a strong message about a sustainable construction sector.
f Top-level housing targets are all very well but there is no requirement or methodology for local authorities to develop granular assessments based on what that means locally: housing size, price, rental v ownership, location, etc.
We encourage you to read more – see our full NPPF consultation responses on the Downloads page of the CCS website.
Policy debates like this may seem rather dry and remote, but they are at the back of many of the day-to-day issues we get excited about.
If you have comments or further questions, please do share them in the CCS WhatsApp group.
f Nor is there any opportunity for, or encouragement of, innovative proposals for a variety of delivery and funding housing solutions, relying solely on what we think is a rather naïve faith in the current developer-led profit-driven model to deliver affordable housing.
3. Things CCS did not agree with:
f MHCLG proposes removing the word ‘beauty’ from the NPPF. We understand the politics of this but believe it could be used to justify ugliness. Beauty matters to people, it is a key part of communities’ identification with place and it supports a wide range of economic activities: exactly what we need more of.
f Heritage is similarly downplayed. This is especially important for Cheltenham with our rich architectural heritage, which is also worth a lot economically to the town.
4. Things CCS felt needed more consideration:
f When it comes to housing, CCS is of the view that quality is as important as quantity, which means that new homes should meet local needs, that design should be of the highest standards, and that construction should meet the highest sustainability standards, that generous amounts of green space are integrated into housing schemes, and that there is an emphasis on creating communities. Developers often cite budget as a barrier but there are many
examples of excellence that do not have to cost more so long as imagination and commitment are employed.
f The weak definition of Grey Belt and other proposals could threaten the integrity of the Green Belt. We would like to see a more imaginative use of land in much of the Green Belt so that it is more than just a place which is kept free of new development but serves a wider range of public needs, e.g., for growing food, recreation, biodiversity and green energy. Such a strategically planned approach to the CheltenhamGloucester Green Belt could be of great value to local people.
f There are some very welcome proposals around renewable energy but more needs to be done to make more use of existing rooftops on industrial and other suitable buildings.
f Finally, while there is reference to public engagement, we think there is much more scope to apply truly participatory methods of engagement where citizens are put at the heart of planning, rather than being sidelined as is often the case at present.
STOP PRESS
As we go to press the government has announced its decision on the outcome of this consultation. While there have been some subtle adjustments, by and large the final version is the same as that put out for comment at the end of July.
Our final words on this are that we support the government’s central objective of building more homes, especially affordable ones, but are concerned that too much is being left in the hands of private developers.
There is not enough direction or incentivisation for other players to address these needs creatively.
We like the emphasis on strategic planning, plan-led development and the priority to be given to using brownfield (that is previously developed) land first. We are pleased that planning measures designed to protect heritage and conserve nature have not been weakened.
See our full statement on this issue on the news page of our website: https://cheltcivicsoc.org
reducing the levels of anti-social
The new MX Growth Hub is already generating more footfall and activity in Minster Gardens, thus
behaviour in the church yard. The Hub’s new café should also stimulate more activity.
The year ahead
They say you get out what you put in – and that proverb certainly applies to the Civic Society.
Members have already demonstrated their civic pride and public commitment by joining the Society but we invite members to make active contributions to satisfy their interests and find more fulfilment from their membership.
The Society has completed many successful projects over the years, including the Gordon Lamp restoration, Montpellier Bandstand restoration and the formation of Friends of Montpellier Bandstand and Gardens, Gloucestershire’s first Heritage Watch at the Minster, the Quarter Party (Friends of Minster Churchyard) and, most recently, the creation of the WWI Battlefield Crosses museum.
In every case, our members have found the opportunities and then brought them to reality through fundraising, designing, campaigning and volunteering their skills and time to deliver first class results.
This year, we’re seeking volunteers to help with the following projects. OurTown • Winter 2025
Heritage Strategy
What’s it about?
Cheltenham is the Festival Town with a rich cultural offer, from museums and galleries to theatres and music as well as the wonderful backdrop of architecture and green spaces. A Culture Strategy was created several years ago but a strategy for heritage is needed to address some gaps.
We’re working with Cheltenham Borough Council to help devise a heritage strategy, bringing national and international best practice to this important topic.
What do we need?
f Volunteers who can give about two hours a week.
f Knowledge of the heritage sector, such as architecture, parks & gardens and conservation.
f Experience of authoring and editing simple papers, such as policy documents or academic papers.
f Methodical team players.
f Appreciation of Cheltenham’s heritage network and assets.
What’s in it for you?
f Playing a part in conserving the town’s heritage.
f Making friends in the groups that will undertake the task.
f A formal reference and accreditation.
f Your name in the List’s contributors.
f A place at the end of project thank you party.
What else do I need to know?
f There are opportunities to develop deeper links through membership of the Heritage Panel.
f Express an interest in participating by emailing: heritage@cheltcivicsoc.org
Events Team
What’s it about?
We want to breathe new life into our events programme.
We’re looking to assemble a small team of two or three creative and friendly individuals to craft a vibrant and enjoyable schedule, including guest speakers, social events, excursions and walks.
What do we need?
f Volunteers who can give about an hour a week.
f Imaginative and sociable.
f Good organisational and networking skills.
What’s in it for you?
f Appreciation for doing a great job.
f Being a central cog for the Society’s membership.
f Making friends and networking.
What else do I need to know?
f We’re looking at a Royal opening of Parmoor, so we need a great team to help organise it.
f Express an interest in participating by emailing: chair@cheltcivicsoc.org
Review of Index of Buildings of Local Interest
A review of the Index of Buildings of Local Interest is long overdue, the last update having been in 2007. All of these are currently in the Index.
What’s it about?
The project will update Cheltenham Borough Council’s Index of Buildings of Local Interest. The list currently includes over 400 buildings and structures that are locally significant but which may not meet the threshold for formal listing by Historic England.
The project will utilise local knowledge by working with the town’s other community and amenity groups. It will also identify those structures that should be promoted for formal listing. And it will help the Council to update its policies to identify heritage at risk, safeguard locally listed structures and promote civic pride.
How will it work?
A joint CBC/CCS project team will divide the Borough into areas that are covered by parish councils, amenity groups and Friends organisations. Those groups will be asked to help identify and describe buildings and structures that are important in their area, using their local knowledge.
CCS will help to cover the areas that are not covered by such groups, using local volunteers found through churches and smaller community groups. The information gathered by volunteers will then be collated by the project team for CBC to adopt.
When will it happen?
Initial briefings will start in early 2025, followed by simple training sessions. We aim to start the information gathering in April 2025 and we hope to collate most of the information within 12 months, with a view to publishing the new list in 2026.
What do we need?
f 3-4 Coordinators:
• well organised people who can help us to manage the project.
• good general knowledge of Cheltenham.
f Lots of Observers:
• sound observational skills with a good eye for detail.
• knowledge of your local neighbourhood.
• reasonable fitness to walk or drive around and make brief assessments.
• appreciation of architectural features and historical periods.
f Team players who can give about an hour a week.
What’s in it for you?
f Playing a part in conserving the town’s heritage.
f Making friends in the groups that will undertake the task.
f Your name in the List’s contributors.
f A place at the end of project thank you party.
What else do I need to know?
f Training and resources will be provided.
f Access to a smartphone or tablet would be useful.
f Sign up here: list@cheltcivicsoc.org
What makes a Trustee?
Four of our member-facing trustees tell us why they got involved and what they get out of being a trustee
Andrew Booton –Chair
“I joined the Society in 2018 and shortly thereafter found myself invited to become a Trustee and then Chair. I have been a member of various civic societies since my teens (I was a young fogey!) and believe strongly in the civic movement and its ability to improve and conserve our beautiful towns and cities. I’m a passionate campaigner and enjoy seeing bottom-up initiatives driving positive change where others are unable or unwilling to deliver it. Being a Trustee is a fantastic way to help shape an active, effective, respected organisation and to make a difference to our beautiful town, and I value working with the other trustees and other civic societies in a close and professional team.”
Steve Bryson –Communications
“I joined CCS in 2011 but did not really get involved until nearing retirement in late 2018 – when I responded to one of Andrew’s requests asking for help with the comms side. Fiona Clarke was by then keen to give up the editorship of OurTown, so I took over from Issue 18. I then soon found myself being nominated as a Trustee. Using my comms experience, I edited and managed the production of CCS’s new website before going on to plan and manage the delivery of the second stage of the WWI Battlefield Crosses project – the creation of the new museum. That project in particular gave me a huge sense of achievement after it opened last September. Since then, I’ve gained further personal fulfilment by coordinating the photography of the new panoramas of the High Street, a project that was close to the heart of our former Vice Chair, Peter Sayers, who sadly died last year.”
Sarah Harvey –HODs Chair
“I initially became involved with the Society through my involvement with Fiona Clarke and Heritage Open Days. As a Trustee I have continued with co-ordinating the HODs programme, which is thriving thanks to the brilliant volunteers who make it all possible. I love working alongside such knowledgeable and enthusiastic people who enjoy sharing their stories and history of Cheltenham with residents and visitors to the town every September. Being a Trustee also gives me the opportunity to learn about different aspects of what makes Cheltenham the town it is – from pavements and the planning process through to the Civic Awards. It's rewarding to play a small part in this process and contribute to making Cheltenham a great place to live and work.”
Hugh Curran –SSG Chair
“I’ve been a Trustee of the Civic Society since 2018. I’m Membership Secretary and Chair of Successful Streets Group (SSG), the public realm forum of the Civic Society –see my article on page 2. I joined CCS because I am a firm believer that there is no point in saying “they should do something”. ‘They’ often don’t do anything! To achieve change or improvement, it is necessary to get involved – and the Civic Society is a tremendously effective way to get involved and to effect change and raise standards in Cheltenham. There are a raft of tasks and projects where I feel our members could become more involved. I am planning to write to all of our valued members shortly to ask each of you to consider how your skills might be useful to improving the Civic Society’s reach and effectiveness.”
Become a trustee Help us to run CCS
We are now looking for two to three new Trustees to help take the Society forward. We are particularly interested in people with the following attributes:
f Net contributors who give more to society than they take out.
f Strong interest and belief in the Society’s aims and objectives.
f Integrity and sense of humour.
f A commitment of an average of two hours per week (not in one session).
f Well organised and diligent.
f Instinctively cooperative and public spirited.
f Professional backgrounds in project management, architecture, accountancy or law would be particularly useful, but all experience and backgrounds would be useful and welcome. OurTown • Winter 2025
Nominations are requested by 28 February 2025. Once validated, nominees will be put to the AGM in April. Trustees generally serve a three-year term, extendable for two further three-year terms.
If you would like to discuss the role, please contact Andrew for an informal chat over coffee (he buys!). We welcome all applicants. If in doubt, just ask: chair@cheltcivicsoc.org
Government pressure to deliver new homes
Cheltenham Borough Council (CBC) is under increased pressure from central government to deliver new homes in the next four years. The target set for homes in the borough is 824 a year –almost double the previous target and significantly more than the 234 homes averaged recently.
Being highly constrained by its boundaries, this is a very challenging target for CBC.However, unused space above shops in the town centre, and redundant office space in older town centre buildings could be two ways to help meet this target.
We cover the target and other planning changes on pages 4-5, and we will return to the unused space issues in the spring edition of OurTown ●
Even though CCS strongly objected to the North Place scheme and it’s showing no signs of progress, its delivery could make a dent in CBC’s housing target in the next two years.
Devolution proposals
As OurTown went to press, the government published its English Devolution White Paper. It outlines proposals to reorganise local government by creating unitary authorities with a population of more than 500,000 (Gloucestershire has a population of some 659,000) and to extend the coverage of directlyelected mayors. Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) was amongst the first to express an interest in fasttracking its conversion to a unitary authority and, consequently, in postponing local elections from May 2025 until May 2026 – with later elections for the new unitary authority.
Cheltenham Borough Council (CBC) was quick to distance itself from GCC’s enthusiastic response, pointing out the need for appropriate consultation and exploration of options.
The proposed devolution model has numerous potential implications for the civic movement, including:
f ACCESS
As Chair of CCS, I meet the Leader and Chief Executive of CBC roughly every quarter and we enjoy ‘full and frank’ conversations, as they say in journalism. I also regularly speak with the chair of the Planning Committee, the Mayor and various senior officers to catch up. Other trustees have similar relationships. We don’t always agree with each other but this open, constructive approach enables us all to explain, explore and understand issues, and to get things done.
f KNOWLEDGE.
f
f
CONSULTATION
New Policy and Research Group
That relationship is not replicated at county level, and I don’t know anyone in the civic movement who has sound relationships with county or unitary authorities. They’re simply too big and have too broad a range of responsibilities to work that way, and they simply don’t approach representation and democracy in the same way. Just look at the way county councillors operate compared with borough and district councillors.
Planning officers may well work from a central office and cover a larger geographical area, relying on less detailed local knowledge or understanding and on more ‘desktop research’ using Google Earth. That is almost certain to affect the quality of planning applications passed and have an impact on our built environment and especially our built heritage.
CCS presently enjoys a formal arrangement with CBC in which, if we object to a planning application, it is usually called before the Planning Committee for consideration. Similarly, CBC’s planning officers liaise closely with us to address concerns informally so that applications are not held up. A larger unitary or regional authority is unlikely to offer that level of consultation or cooperation.
COMMUNITY RIGHTS
A ‘right to buy’ assets at risk of being lost and important to the community, such as pubs, would strengthen the ‘right to bid’ first introduced by the Localism Act 2011. Funding would be available to purchase community assets. Similarly, communities and businesses will be given powers to rent shops that have been vacant for a long time, helping to revitalise high streets. Are these sops to localism or will they really strengthen the hand of communities in dealing with their most pressing concerns?
We will be talking to our friends in the Gloucestershire Civic Societies’ Group and the West Midlands Amenity Societies Association.
Through those groups, we will be working with Civic Voice, the overarching body for civic societies, to play a constructive but determined part in ensuring the civic movement’s effectiveness is sustained.
Booton, CCS Chair ● OurTown • Winter 2025
Andrew
In the past couple of years, with the phenomenal breadth and depth of members’ knowledge, experience and connections, the Civic Society has submitted some detailed and constructive responses to national and local government consultations.
Nationally, this has included responses to the 2021 and 2024 National Planning Policy Frameworks (NPPFs), supporting housing delivery and public service infrastructure, planning white papers and permitted development.
Locally, we have commented on Public Rights of Way (PROW) proposals, the Cheltenham, Gloucester and Tewkesbury Strategic and Local Plan (SLP), graffiti policy and planning application validation requirements.
Readers will also know we have generated proposals on topics as diverse as Cambray Riverside, Cavendish House’s redevelopment, a draft policy for best practice in the conversion of front gardens to driveways, and manifestos for the care and repair of the public realm in our town centre..
As a well-connected, thinking organisation we are now forming a Policy & Research Group that makes best use of our collective skills, knowledge and experience as opportunities arise. If you would like to participate or find out more, please contact Andrew Booton: chair@cheltcivicsoc.org
Andrew Booton, CCS Chair ●
Safety in the town centre
Walking through our town centre after the Magdeburg and New Orleans pedestrian tragedies, I wondered what is stopping such deliberate acts from happening here. In a town full of government employees obsessed with security, I can’t be the only person to have imagined such a thing. Hopefully, someone in authority is getting to grips with this potential if unlikely risk!
Steve Bryson, Editor & Trustee ●
OurTown • Winter 2025
Around Town : PUBLIC 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
Followuson Twitter and Instagram @cheltcivicsoc andon 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: 131structure–LuckyOnion 2: Streetfixtures–HughCurran 3: JohnLewiscowpat–Editor 5: MXbuilding–Editor 7: Indexedbuildings–Editor 8: Trustees–Editor 9: NorthPlacecarpark–Editor 11: AroundTown–Editor 12: Circumspice17–Editor
ArtworkandlayoutbytheEditor PrintingarrangedbyArtWorksDesign
Cheltenham’s most familiar piece of street art – Sophie Ryder’s Minotaur & Hare – which was controversial when first installed.
PERSONAL VIEWPOINT
Time for a rethink?
When Historic England (HE) submits damning objections to planning applications, most developers recognise that it is time to change their game and try a more acceptable approach.
In response to 131’s applications to erect permanent pavilion structures in front of their Regency villas on the Prom, HE has submitted objections saying that: “the heritage values that make up the significance of all three Grade II* villas would be significantly diminished by anyform ofdevelopment on this elevation”.
But instead of changing tack, 131 has continued to pursue a PR campaign aimed at winning public support through mailing their customers, doing media interviews and organising articles in The Times and the Daily Mail – as though winning planning consent is merely a popularity contest.
Listening to his interview on BBC’s You and Yours the other day, I felt that Mr Dunkerton does have his heart in the right place on most things, particularly on how to regenerate town centres. His track record of restoring some of our town’s best buildings has also seen
CCS give him two Civic Awards. All of which would potentially make him an ideal candidate to become one of the Society’s corporate members – if only it wasn’t for his 131 applications!
While I see the financial attraction of the proposals, I don’t see the logic of Mr Dunkerton allowing himself to become embroiled in a highly risky battle with Historic England.
Especially when both HE and CCS have constructively indicated that an acceptable solution would be to locate the pavilions at the rear of the site
That would allow the forecourts to return to their original use serving light refreshments under attractive parasols.
CCS has also suggested that during peak periods such as race week, 131 could make use of the government’s recent Class BB rules allowing temporary structures for up to 120 days a year.
So I do wonder how well he is being advised. A rethink would be far better!
Steve Bryson, Editor & Trustee ●
The low winter sun is a boon to the photographer of crisply defined buildings at this time of year. Where is this fine pair of windows with striking shadows? 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.
