Land on the south side of Glenfall Way, Cheltenham

Decision

dismissed, 4 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Jonathan Edwards

Authority

Cheltenham (South West)

Appeal reference

6008569

Application reference

25/00650/OUT

Procedure

written representations

Development

Outline for 4 self/custom-build dwellings (access only) on a field at the edge of Cheltenham in the Cotswold National Landscape

Homes

4

Site context

settlement edge, national landscape

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

2.69 years

Housing Delivery Test

56%

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(j)(i), N4, N2

Development plan policies

Gloucester Cheltenham and Tewkesbury JCS 2017 SD4, SD6, SD7, SD10, INF6, Cheltenham Plan 2020 L1, D1

Main issues

suitability of location; character and appearance and National Landscape

Summary

Four self/custom-build plots on an open field at the edge of Cheltenham, inside the Cotswold National Landscape. Dismissed. The site passed S5(1)(j)(i): 2.69 years' supply, HDT 56%, and well related to the town. The JCS countryside policy was given very little weight as materially inconsistent with S5. But the loss of open views towards the Cotswold Escarpment was harm to the NL's scenic beauty. With N4 "very considerable weight", that substantially outweighed benefits that together carried considerable weight.

Issues and findings

• Transition. The parties were invited to comment on the 2026 Framework and the Aug 2026 HDT results (DL ¶6).
• Location — S5(1)(j)(i): PASS. "The development would be physically well-related to Cheltenham as it would adjoin a residential cul de sac on one side and it would be opposite housing ... Future residents ... would be able to easily walk to the nearby primary school" (DL ¶11).
• Local plan weight. "The identified conflict with JCS policy SD10 is afforded very little weight as the policy is materially inconsistent with the provisions on housing outside of settlements as set out in part 1 of policy SD5 [sic] of the Framework" (DL ¶28).
• NL — N4/N2: FAIL. The field's "open and rural qualities contribute to the scenic attractiveness of the NL, particularly when looking out from Glenfall Way towards the Cotswold Escarpment" (DL ¶16). "The provisions under part 2 of policy N4 ... do not apply as the proposal would not be major development ... However, even if it is treated as being limited development, the proposal would not accord with part 1 of policy N4 ... Therefore, I attach very considerable weight to the harm" (DL ¶27).
• Self-build. Weight reduced to moderate because the UU's cascade allows open-market sale if marketing fails (DL ¶23).

Planning balance

S5(1) balance. Benefits: HO7 substantial, self-build moderate, POS and footpath moderate, BNG modest, "considerable weight" overall (DL ¶¶22–26). Harm: NL very considerable weight, plus the section 245 LURA duty (DL ¶27). "The harm caused in these regards substantially outweighs the benefits of the development. As such, the proposal would not accord with policy S5 of the Framework when read as a whole" (DL ¶28).

What made the difference

The National Landscape designation and a specific, publicly valued view (from the road and the right of way to the Escarpment) that any layout would interrupt. Passing S5(1)(j), a weak local plan and severe under-delivery were not enough once N4 applied. The same field outside a Protected Landscape would very probably have been allowed. An earlier nearby dismissal on landscape grounds (APP/B1605/W/25/3361502) pointed the same way (DL ¶18).

Transferable points

• A site can pass S5(1)(j)(i) and the local countryside policy can be given very little weight as inconsistent with S5, yet N4 harm alone can "substantially outweigh" (DL ¶¶11, 27–28).
• N4(1) applies to non-major development in a National Landscape. Harm to scenic views from roads and rights of way is enough (DL ¶¶16, 27).
• Local-plan policies restricting housing outside settlements can be "materially inconsistent" with S5(1) and carry very little weight (DL ¶28).
• A self-build obligation with an open-market fallback gives only moderate weight (DL ¶23).
• Drafting slips: "SD5" for S5 and "H07" for HO7.

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Supply 2.69 years; HDT 56% for three years to 2025 (DL 10)
• Self-build shortfall of 114 plots undisputed, but UU allows open-market fallback if marketing fails, so only moderate weight (DL 23)
• UU secures SAC contribution, BNG, public open space and a new footpath link (DL 5, 24-25)
• Overall benefits "considerable weight" (DL 26)
• Letter repeatedly writes "policy SD5" for Framework S5 and "H07" for HO7 (DL 11, 22, 28)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.