43 affordable homes at Knightsbridge Nurseries, Elmstone Hardwicke, Cheltenham

Summary of planning committee decision

Deferred by Tewkesbury Planning on 21 Jul 2026.

23/00328/OUTDeferred

What was proposed

The application sought outline permission for up to 43 affordable homes, with access decided now and other matters reserved.

“This application seeks outline planning permission for the erection of up to 43 affordable homes. All matters are reserved except for means of access which is proposed to be taken off the A4019. At present the main access to the site is shared with the dwelling to the south of the site. The proposal will see the separation of the site access from the current shared arrangement and the provision of a separate access to the central part of the site frontage.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The former nursery is outside Coombe Hill, beside the A4019, near homes, a bus stop, footpaths and commercial facilities.

“The application site is located to the north-east of the A4019 and the site is 1.3ha in size. The site comprises the former Knightsbridge Nurseries a former commercial nursery. The site is currently in temporary horticultural use and lies to the east of Knightsbridge. It is adjacent to Coome Hill (a service village in the JCS). The centre of Coombe Hill is to the north and is accessible along an existing footway.”

“Immediately to the south-east and north-west of the site are residential properties, including a residential property (Willowdene) that shares the site’s existing access on to the A4019. Approximately 280m to the north of the site is Knightsbridge Business Centre comprising several industrial / commercial units, which include a gym, commercial and retail businesses.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier applications concerned glasshouses and proposed commercial floorspace, with the commercial scheme withdrawn in 2023.

“Application Number Proposal Decision Decision Date 20/00342/OUT Outline application to demolish existing buildings and structures and the erection of up to 3975m2 of B1/B2 floorspace. (All matters reserved except for access). Withdrawn 19.03.2023 86/00623/FUL Erection of glasshouse Approved 19.03.1986 79/00499/FUL Erection of glasshouse Approved 19.06.1979”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Principal Planning Officer, Legal Adviser, highways representatives and development management officers answered members’ questions; no public speakers addressed the committee.

Members' debate

Members questioned traffic modelling, Junction 10, pedestrian safety, local facilities, school access, sewage, sustainability and reduced contributions.

“The Legal Adviser advised that no prejudice could be attached to the submission of an outline application, provided Officers had sufficient details to determine it, and she indicated that there was an ability to determine details at the reserved matters stage. A Member asked whether the traffic analysis for this application had taken into account the impact of the planned upgrade of M5 Junction 10 in terms of increased traffic numbers and potential safety issues.”

“The Development Management Team Manager (South) clarified that the scheme had been assessed for the safety of the access which would remain appropriate for the speed of the highway whether or not there was any potential increase in traffic movements as a result of the works to Junction 10. The Member asked whether there should be a change to the road layout so that vehicles could stop to turn into/out of the site from the middle of the road.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to defer the application for three months was proposed and seconded, then approved by the committee.

“It was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred for three months in order to obtain additional information regarding traffic modelling and the assessment of highway safety in the context of M5 Junction 10 and the social aspect in terms of community facilities for young people and families given the isolated nature of the site.”

Minutes

The members' reasons

“The audit had identified certain locations within the borough considered more sustainable than others and was based not only on the number of services but things such as bus services in terms of accessibility – Coombe Hill had scored highly enough to be identified as a sustainable location in the overall strategy. 18.14 A Member acknowledged that the applicant was no longer contributing towards home to school transport due to viability.”

“PL.21.07.26 18.21 A brief debate ensued as to whether it could be guaranteed that the application would be brought back to the Committee the following month with the additional information Members felt was required and the Head of Service: Development Management indicated that was difficult to give that assurance as it would depend on the level of information that needed to be provided by the applicant and reviewed by Officers.”

Minutes

Source: the council's minutes, quoted word for word.

Sources

  • Tewkesbury Planning minutes, 21 July 2026
  • Agenda and papers (council website)

Source: Plota analysis of Tewkesbury's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.

Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API

The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.

See the API →

At the meeting

Council
Tewkesbury
Date
Tuesday 21 July 2026
Recommendation
Officers recommended approval
Committee decided
Deferred
Minutes
The council's minutes
Meeting
Agenda and papers (council website)
Application
The application (council website)

This committee's year

13 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting.

Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.

Every decision by this council's committees →