Plans to build 172 new social homes alongside public spaces and commercial units at Gloucester’s Podsmead Estate have been refused by city planners. Gloucester City Homes proposed the £45 million redevelopment of Masefield Avenue, hailing it a ‘once-in-a-generation’ opportunity created through collaboration with Homes England, Gloucester City Council, residents, and community leaders.
The ambitious scheme involved demolishing 64 existing homes and constructing 172 new properties—including a range of one- to five-bedroom units—to meet the high demand for social housing in the area. It also promised £1.3 million investment in enhanced public spaces, 262 parking spaces, community allotments, play areas, a BMX pump track, and multi-use games areas. The plan included 3,864 sq ft of flexible commercial and community space positioned to serve as a new gateway to the estate.
However, despite these benefits, the planning committee voiced strong concerns. The scheme would result in the loss of 4.7 acres of open green space—amounting to about 60% of the informal amenity land in the area—and the removal of 34 mature trees, which cannot be fully replaced by new growth. The development did not meet parking standards, raising fears that adjacent streets like Scott Avenue would become heavily congested.
READ MORE: New Owners Set to Revive Famous Cotswolds Pub with Cheltenham Gold Cup Heritage
READ MORE: Cotswolds Iron Age Roman Settlement Discovered After Rare Sword Find
Councillors acknowledged the urgent need for affordable housing, with over 5,000 people currently on Gloucester’s social housing waiting list. Yet, several raised worries about the project’s design and scale. Some described the apartment blocks as resembling a “prison” due to their uniform rooftops, while others criticized the density and expressed doubt about the long-term quality of the housing. Concerns were also voiced about the strain new homes would place on local infrastructure, particularly schools, noting that Gloucester City Homes offered no contributions towards education facilities.
Local representatives called for the scheme to be revised to better address residents’ concerns about green space, parking, and community impact. A proposal for a site visit to explore these issues was rejected, and a motion to defer the decision failed. In the end, the council voted six against, two in favor, and one abstention to reject the plans.
While some councillors emphasized the importance of regeneration in one of the city’s most deprived wards, the fear of overwhelming traffic and loss of vital green space ultimately outweighed the perceived benefits. Gloucester City Homes has been urged to revisit the proposals and submit an amended plan that better balances housing needs with community wellbeing.