The decision to reject plans for a £45 million regeneration project proposing 172 new homes, shops, and commercial units in Podsmead has sparked controversy and calls for the Gloucester City Council leadership to resign. Described as a “once-in-a-generation opportunity,” the project aimed to revitalize the area with modern infrastructure and enhanced community amenities.
Gloucester City Homes advocated that the development on Masefield Avenue would create a thriving, sustainable neighborhood by improving local facilities and investing in offsite sports and play areas. Despite these promises, the council’s planning committee refused permission, citing concerns over the loss of open space, potential overcrowding of parking, and criticisms that the proposed social housing felt “prison-like.”
Former Conservative County Councillor Andrew Miller questioned Council Leader Jeremy Hilton (Lib Dem, Kingsholm and Wotton) at a council meeting on July 17, emphasizing the current shortage of shops and facilities in Podsmead. Miller criticized what he called misleading advice surrounding the application’s postponement and lamented the loss of significant public investment aimed at supporting vulnerable populations.
READ MORE: Scientist Claims Breakfast Favorite Eggs Have Been Unfairly Blamed for Cholesterol
READ MORE: Eye Scan Using AI Could Predict Heart Attack and Stroke Risk
“Given the potentially misleading advice given to the committee on the postponement, the loss of £45 million of public funds for an area desperately needing investment, and the leader’s dismissal of an inquiry, will the Liberal Democrat administration seriously reconsider their position? I would recommend you resign tonight,” Miller stated bluntly.
In response, Council Leader Jeremy Hilton defended the process, affirming that due process was followed without interference from the administration. “This planning application was dealt with properly by the planning committee,” Hilton declared. He explained that officers worked closely with Gloucester City Homes to ensure the application was robust before it was put to the July 1 planning committee, which ultimately made a cross-party decision free from political influence.
Highlighting the vote breakdown—two Conservatives and four Liberal Democrats voted against the application, one Conservative abstained, and only one Labour and one Liberal Democrat member voted in favor—Hilton insisted, “It was a free democratic vote by the planning committee, and suggestions otherwise are disingenuous.”
Dr. Miller objected to being labeled disingenuous, but the mayor quickly stepped in to end debate, emphasizing the meeting’s procedural limits.