Planning and Licensing Committee - Wednesday 10 September 2025, 2:00pm - Cotswold District Council Webcasting

Planning and Licensing Committee
Wednesday, 10th September 2025 at 2:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Dilys Neill
Share this agenda point
  1. Julia Gibson, Officer
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Dilys Neill
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor David Fowles
  2. Councillor Dilys Neill
  3. Councillor David Fowles
  4. Councillor Dilys Neill
  5. Councillor Julia Judd
  6. Leonie Woodward, Legal Services
  7. Councillor Daryl Corps
  8. Councillor David Fowles
  9. Councillor Michael Vann
  10. Councillor Tristan Wilkinson
  11. Councillor Juliet Layton
  12. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  13. Councillor Nick Bridges
  14. Councillor Dilys Neill
  15. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  16. Officer
  17. Officer
  18. Councillor Dilys Neill
  19. Officer
  20. Julia Gibson, Officer
  21. Councillor Dilys Neill
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Dilys Neill
  2. 04. To confirm the minutes of the Committee held on 13 August 2025
    Status: In progress
  3. Councillor Dilys Neill
  4. 04. To confirm the minutes of the Committee held on 13 August 2025
    Status: Ended
Share this agenda point
  1. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  2. Councillor Dilys Neill
  3. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  4. Councillor Dilys Neill
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Julia Judd
  2. Councillor Dilys Neill
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Officer
  2. Councillor Dilys Neill
  3. Town/Parish Council
  4. Councillor Dilys Neill
  5. Julia Gibson, Officer
  6. Councillor Dilys Neill
  7. Applicant/Agent
  8. Councillor Dilys Neill
  9. Ward Member
  10. Councillor Dilys Neill
  11. Councillor Dilys Neill
  12. Councillor Nick Bridges
  13. Officer
  14. Councillor Dilys Neill
  15. Councillor Dilys Neill
  16. Councillor Daryl Corps
  17. Officer
  18. Councillor Daryl Corps
  19. Officer
  20. Councillor Daryl Corps
  21. Councillor Dilys Neill
  22. Councillor David Fowles
  23. Officer
  24. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  25. Officer
  26. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  27. Officer
  28. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  29. Officer
  30. Councillor Dilys Neill
  31. Councillor Julia Judd
  32. Officer
  33. Councillor Julia Judd
  34. Officer
  35. Councillor David Fowles
  36. Officer
  37. Councillor Dilys Neill
  38. Councillor Daryl Corps
  39. Councillor Dilys Neill
  40. Councillor Nick Bridges
  41. Officer
  42. Councillor Dilys Neill
  43. Officer
  44. Councillor Dilys Neill
  45. Officer
  46. Councillor Dilys Neill
  47. Officer
  48. Councillor Dilys Neill
  49. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  50. Councillor David Fowles
  51. Councillor Dilys Neill
  52. Councillor Julia Judd
  53. Councillor Dilys Neill
  54. Councillor Daryl Corps
  55. Councillor Dilys Neill
  56. Councillor Nick Bridges
  57. Councillor Dilys Neill
  58. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  59. Councillor Dilys Neill
  60. Councillor Juliet Layton
  61. Councillor Dilys Neill
  62. 09. 25/01194/OUT - Land Parcel North of Olimpick Drive - REFUSE
    Status: In progress
  63. Councillor Dilys Neill
  64. 09. 25/01194/OUT - Land Parcel North of Olimpick Drive - REFUSE
    Status: Ended
  65. Councillor Dilys Neill
Share this agenda point
  1. Officer
  2. Councillor Dilys Neill
  3. Town/Parish Council
  4. Councillor Dilys Neill
  5. Julia Gibson, Officer
  6. Councillor Dilys Neill
  7. Applicant/Agent
  8. Councillor Dilys Neill
  9. Councillor Dilys Neill
  10. Public Speaker
  11. Ward Member
  12. Councillor Dilys Neill
  13. Leonie Woodward, Legal Services
  14. Councillor Dilys Neill
  15. Councillor Dilys Neill
  16. Councillor David Fowles
  17. Officer
  18. Councillor Dilys Neill
  19. Councillor Daryl Corps
  20. Officer
  21. Councillor Daryl Corps
  22. Councillor Dilys Neill
  23. Councillor Tristan Wilkinson
  24. Officer
  25. Councillor Dilys Neill
  26. Councillor Tristan Wilkinson
  27. Officer
  28. Councillor Dilys Neill
  29. Councillor Juliet Layton
  30. Officer
  31. Councillor Juliet Layton
  32. Officer
  33. Councillor Dilys Neill
  34. Councillor David Fowles
  35. Officer
  36. Councillor Dilys Neill
  37. Officer
  38. Councillor Dilys Neill
  39. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  40. Councillor Dilys Neill
  41. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  42. Councillor Dilys Neill
  43. Councillor David Fowles
  44. Councillor Dilys Neill
  45. Councillor Tristan Wilkinson
  46. Councillor Dilys Neill
  47. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  48. Councillor Dilys Neill
  49. Councillor Michael Vann
  50. Councillor Dilys Neill
  51. Councillor Daryl Corps
  52. Councillor Dilys Neill
  53. Councillor Juliet Layton
  54. Councillor Dilys Neill
  55. Councillor David Fowles
  56. Councillor Dilys Neill
  57. Councillor Julia Judd
  58. Councillor Dilys Neill
  59. Councillor Daryl Corps
  60. Councillor Dilys Neill
  61. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  62. Officer
  63. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  64. Officer
  65. Councillor Dilys Neill
  66. Councillor Dilys Neill
  67. 10. 25/01717/FUL - Land West of Hatherop Road - PERMIT subject to completion of S106 and conditions
    Status: In progress
  68. 10. 25/01717/FUL - Land West of Hatherop Road - PERMIT subject to completion of S106 and conditions
    Status: Ended
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Dilys Neill
  2. Officer
  3. Councillor Dilys Neill
  4. Town/Parish Council
  5. Objector
  6. Applicant/Agent
  7. Councillor Dilys Neill
  8. Julia Gibson, Officer
  9. Councillor Dilys Neill
  10. Councillor David Fowles
  11. Officer
  12. Councillor Dilys Neill
  13. Councillor Julia Judd
  14. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  15. Councillor Dilys Neill
  16. Councillor Daryl Corps
  17. Officer
  18. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  19. Officer
  20. Councillor Daryl Corps
  21. Councillor Daryl Corps
  22. Officer
  23. Councillor Dilys Neill
  24. Councillor Juliet Layton
  25. Officer
  26. Councillor Juliet Layton
  27. Officer
  28. Councillor Juliet Layton
  29. Officer
  30. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  31. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  32. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  33. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  34. Councillor Dilys Neill
  35. Officer
  36. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  37. Officer
  38. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  39. Officer
  40. Councillor Dilys Neill
  41. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  42. Councillor Dilys Neill
  43. Councillor Dilys Neill
  44. Councillor David Fowles
  45. Officer
  46. Councillor David Fowles
  47. Officer
  48. Councillor Dilys Neill
  49. Councillor Tristan Wilkinson
  50. Officer
  51. Councillor Tristan Wilkinson
  52. Councillor Dilys Neill
  53. Councillor Tristan Wilkinson
  54. Councillor Dilys Neill
  55. Councillor Julia Judd
  56. Officer
  57. Councillor Dilys Neill
  58. Councillor Daryl Corps
  59. Councillor Dilys Neill
  60. Councillor Tristan Wilkinson
  61. Councillor Dilys Neill
  62. Councillor Juliet Layton
  63. Officer
  64. Councillor Dilys Neill
  65. Councillor David Fowles
  66. Councillor Dilys Neill
  67. Councillor Dilys Neill
  68. Councillor Dilys Neill
  69. Councillor Dilys Neill
  70. Councillor David Fowles
  71. Councillor Dilys Neill
  72. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  73. Councillor Tristan Wilkinson
  74. Councillor Dilys Neill
  75. Councillor David Fowles
  76. Councillor Dilys Neill
  77. Councillor Julia Judd
  78. Officer
  79. Councillor Dilys Neill
  80. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  81. Councillor Dilys Neill
  82. Councillor Dilys Neill
  83. 11. 25/01970/PLP - Land at Ethans Orchard - Defer - Pending Site Inspection Briefing
    Status: In progress
  84. Councillor Dilys Neill
  85. 11. 25/01970/PLP - Land at Ethans Orchard - Defer - Pending Site Inspection Briefing
    Status: Ended
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor David Fowles
  2. Councillor Dilys Neill
  3. Councillor David Fowles
  4. Councillor Dilys Neill
  5. Councillor Dilys Neill
  6. Webcast Finished

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:00:01
Good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of the planning committee of Cotswold District Council
I'm Dilys Neal and I am currently chair of planning committee. I'd like to welcome all members of the public who've attended
Thank you very much for attending. It's very nice to see you
But just to remind you
That you're not allowed to talk to any of the members of the committee
Please don't think we are ignoring you or not interested in your opinion.
We are not allowed to speak to you and seem to be influenced by what you are saying to
us.
Please keep your comments to yourself.
Obviously individual members can speak.
We have supporters, objectors, town council members who will be coming up in the public
speaking section of each application.
Each one of you gets three minutes and my colleague, Councillor Judd, will time you
and you will be cut off at three minutes.
So please try and keep your comments concise and put the most important things first.
When it gets to three minutes, we will allow you to finish your sentence,
but we won't allow you to go on for another couple of minutes after you're allotted time.
After that, the ward member is allowed to speak for five minutes.
So thank you very much for that.
So we welcome any members of the public who are viewing this committee at home.
When it comes to voting, you should be able to see on your screens the electronic voting
record.
If our electronic system doesn't work, it normally works very well, but if it doesn't
work, we will revert to a show of hands.
Can I now just ask everyone who has got a mobile phone about their person to switch
it off or keep it quiet. There's always somebody who has forgotten to do that. Thank you very
much. Now moving on to the agenda. Do we have any apologies?

1 Apologies

Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:02:17
Yes, we have apologies for Councillor Ian Watson, Councillor Ray Brasington and Councillor

2 Substitute Members

and we have a substitution of Councillor Juliet Layton for Councillor Ian Watson.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:02:29
Thank you very much. Do any of the members have any declarations of interest?

3 Declarations of Interest

Councillor David Fowles - 0:02:44
Councillor Fance. I discussed this with the legal representative.
Just to put on record if I may that item 8, the clerk, John Dooley is also a parish
councillor in one of the parishes that I represent, Quenington, and we have seen each other at events
in the community that I have a non -peculiar interest there. And the other, she's not here yet,
but on item 11, Councillor Bella Amie is a friend of mine, again, non -peculiar interest,
I have been advised to record those two statements but I am taking part in the debate. No issues
as far as I am concerned. Thank you very much. Do any of the officers
want to? Thank you chair. I also know Councillor Bella Amory but I have never been to her house.
I don't think she's been to mine.
Is that okay? Thank you.
Do any of the officers have any interest they need to declare?
Oh, sorry. Councillor Caul.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:03:54
Councillor David Fowles - 0:03:55
Chair, one more. I know Bella quite well, personally.
Thank you. Do any of the officers need to declare an interest?
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:07
In that case it occurs to me that we haven't introduced everybody, so could I ask the members
of the panel, of the committee, to introduce themselves, starting with Councillor Judd.
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:04:20
Thank you, Chair. I'm Councillor Julia Judd from Ermine Ward.
Leonie Woodward, Legal Services - 0:04:29
I'm Leonie Woodward, the legal advisor for this committee today.
Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:04:36
I'm Councillor Daracore for Moreton and Marsh in the north of Cotswolds.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:04:43
I'm Councillor David Fowles for the Colne Valley Ward.
Michael Van Fairford North.
Councillor Michael Vann - 0:04:51
Councillor Tristan Wilkinson - 0:04:55
Councillor Wilkinson for Fairford, Campsford and Lechlade.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:05:01
Juliet Layton for South Cerny Village Ward.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:05:10
Good afternoon, I'm Patrick Coleman and I'm the Member for Stratton Ward in Syrinsester.
Nick Bridges, Watermore Ward.
Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:05:19
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:05:24
Thank you very much. Can I have the officers to introduce themselves, please?
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:05:30
My name is Harrison Bowley. I'm the head of planning services for the Constitutional Council.
Officer - 0:05:34
Martin Perks, principal planning officer.
Officer - 0:05:44
Amy Hill, Senior Planning Officer.
Justine Aitken, Conservation and Design.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:05:48
Officer - 0:05:50
Julia Gibson, Democratic Services Officer.
Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:05:55
Thank you very much.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:05:58
I think for anyone watching at home, the names of the person speaking should flash up on
your screens by the wonders of modern technology.
Let's see if it works.
Good.
OK, so moving on to the rest of the agenda.
Has everyone read the minutes?

4 Minutes

Are there any comments on the minutes
of our last meeting in August?
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:06:27
Would anyone like to propose that we accept the meetings?
Thank you to Councillor Fowles.
Anyone would like to second?
OK.
Now can we take a vote to accept the minutes?
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:06:49
Moving on to Chair's announcements.

5 Chair's Announcements

I have one announcement which is that the first item on our schedule of applications
was to look at the land north east of Meckleton and that has been withdrawn.
Mr Bally, do you want to say anything about that?
No, only to update members.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:07:19
yesterday afternoon the applicant withdrew the planning application so we
no longer have that application in front of us so we no longer need to debate it
so we'll move straight on to the following item.
Councillor Conlon.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:07:32
Chair because I made the mistake of reading the
application before checking my emails from last night I spent a lot of time
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:07:39
and I was grateful because I learned a lot and I wanted to just take this very
brief opportunity to say how impressed I was with the depth and range of the
report and yet another huge credit is to our officer Martin Perks because we
didn't even have the application for very many months and yet it was a
significant and technically it was because it's been withdrawn but no doubt
something will appear one day in its place. I just wanted to sort I don't
always think that when I read officers reports but I certainly did with that
Also, I am very impressed by all the parish and town council comments as well.
Thank you very much. We will see Mr Perks in action for two further applications.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:08:22
Thank you very much. Are there any public questions?
Are there any members questions?

6 Public questions

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:08:39
I am following up from what Councillor Coleman talked about a few minutes ago. The planning
committee has always been a completely non -political committee. Is it all right with everybody
if we just mix up next time the different groups? Is everybody happy with that? Thank
Thank you. Thank you, Julia.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:09:10
An excellent suggestion.
So we're now moving on to Item 9 on our agenda,

7 Member questions

which is the Outline Application for Residential Development

Schedule of Applications

8 25/01621/OUT - Land North East of Mickleton

for up to 30 dwellings, including the detailed matter of access

9 25/01194/OUT - Land Parcel North of Olimpick Drive

and associated works at the Land Parcel north of Olympic Drive, Chipping Campton.
The case officer is Martin Perks.
The ward members are Councillor Gina Bloomfield
and Councillor Tom Stowe.
The recommendation is to refuse.
Can I ask Mr Perks to provide an update for us?
Thank you, Chair.
Yes, on the additional pages that you should have had
Officer - 0:10:03
on Monday. This confirmed the applicants provided Great Crested Newt licencing report which
has been looked at by Nature Space. So broadly the information that we had concerns about
in regard to Refusal Reason 3 has been addressed. So subject to any conditions should you be
minded to approve the application we'd attach those recommended conditions from Nature Space
if permission was granted. So we no longer wish to pursue Refusal Reason 3 which relates
the great Crested News. I've also confirmed that County Council highways now raise no
objection to the application subject to conditions and we had one additional objection which
again just referred to loss of greenfield and drainage issues which have been mentioned
by a number of other objectors. So I'll just go on to the PowerPoint if that's okay and
and show you where we are. For those not familiar with Chippin Camden, it's adjacent to the
southwestern edge of the town. The application site outlined in red. The development to the
southeast is the development of 30 Houses Olympic Drive, which was allowed at appeal
in 2017. That's an aerial photograph obviously just showing the field in which it will be
located and just showing the extent of the field and how far it stretches up to the side
of the hill. View from the northern part of Olympic Drive looking towards the application
site and showing the extent by which the land rises up the hillside. This is the southern
boundary looking eastwards across the southern boundary. I've shown that because the the
gravelled area is like a kind of large French drain and there's a bund to its side which
is part of recent drainage and works that have been undertaken by the developer in response
to the flooding that happened about 18 months ago. And this is looking south eastwards from
the along the public right away towards the Olympic Drive development and clear housing
would be either side of that footpath as you look there. And again, looking through the
Olympic Drive development towards the proposed application site.
The layout as shown, this is indicative, so it is not fixed, but it gives an indication
of what could happen if you want to place 30 houses on site. I think one of the concerns
we have got is just however you are trying to arrange 30 houses on this site, you are
going to end up with a very urban suburban kind of housing estate development that doesn't
respond particularly sensitively to its location. It's also elevated above the existing development
so it does start to go up the side of the hill as well. So we do have particular concerns
of just about the encroachment of development into that landscape and the harm it causes
to the setting of the town and the character and appearance of the national landscape.
And for those reasons in this instance we think that harm outweighs the benefits arising
from the housing. That is why we are recommending refusal in this instance. Thank you very much.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:13:20
Thank you very much. Can I ask the public speakers to come forward? For the Town and
Parish Council we have got John Dooley. The objector is David Jennings Riley. His representation
I think is going to be read out. The applicant, the agent is Wendy Hoskins and I will call
up Councillor Stowe when the public speakers have finished. Thank you very much. Can I
just remind you again that you have each got three minutes and we will cut you off at the
end of your three minutes but we will allow you to finish your sentence. So I would like
ask Mr. Dooley to speak first. You can sit down and switch on your microphone if
Town/Parish Council - 0:14:22
you press the button to the right that should work. Thank you I'm John Dooley
the town clerk for Chipping Camden. Chipping Camden Town Council is opposed
to this application on the grounds that it has major concerns with respect to
flooding in the town and flood mitigation at this proposed site.
The town already suffers with major flooding issues, much of which is a result of the first
development at this site.
The current proposal is a second building works at and around this site.
The initial development proposal at the site included flood mitigation measures, but these
were omitted or poorly installed.
For example, the proposed bund was not installed at the time, as was mentioned, it was added later.
Drains and drainage design was poor and wasn't installed very well.
And the drains do not enter very well into the attenuation pond that was installed at the time.
Chipping Camden Town Council requests if this second phase of development is permitted,
problems encountered following the first phase of development at the site are revisited and reviewed in order to prevent a repeat and or exhibition of the problems arising as a result of that development.
Chippinghamden Town Council guarantees that this application will address and solve the
problems already existing at and due to the development at the site.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
You kept well within your time.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:16:10
The next item is the submission from the objector David Jennings -Riley.
Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:16:25
My name is David Jennings -Riley and I reside in number 2 Stichler Place. May I first thank
the chair and committee for allowing my address to be read out and may I apologise for not
being able to attend in person today. In 10 .79 through to 10 .81, Mr Perks provides a case
as to why no sequential test was undertaken. In 10 .8, Mr Perks quotes a gov .uk website
on sequential testing which was written by the Environment Agency. However, in 10 .8,
Mr. Perks quotes, admits the last paragraph in when the
sequential test is needed.
Quote, a development is not exempt through the sequential
test just because a flood risk assessment shows it can be made
safe throughout its lifetime without increasing risk
elsewhere.
The phrase without increasing risk elsewhere is crucial and
yet has been omitted and ignored.
The possibility of increased flood risks through the
cumulative effect of close developments, noted in the Scotswold District Council Level 1
Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Final Report 2023, Section 4 .7, has also been ignored.
From the real -world experiences of Lezos 1, it can be seen that the drainage of the overland
flows via a cut -off ditch has increased the flood risk elsewhere, namely to Littleworth
and Park Road, and at the junction of Dyers Lane, Blind Lane and Park Road.
That said, Mr Lesser, the LLFA, in his letter of 20 August, approved the drawings for another
cut -off ditch, this time to protect Leeslow's 2 from uplands flows and in doing so feed
flows into the Leeslow's 1 cut -off ditch. Leeslow's 2 cut -off ditch is mammoth. It will
attempt to divert overland flows collected from the far corners of Leeslowes 2 around
almost the entire site and ultimately discharge it into the already precarious and overflowing
dyes laying ditch. This ambiguous cut -off ditch is less of a ditch and more of a grand
canal. However, these approved drawings also have emissions. The drawings completely omit
the already problematic double cut -off ditches and the protective bund above
Stickler Place into which flows coming off Leeslowe 2 itself
will feed into and which then will be passed downstream into Littleworth and
Park Road both of which are Zones 2 and Zones 3 flood risk respectively. The
flows from Leeslowe 1 and the issues and problems they've caused downstream are
widely documented and even photographed resulting in a visit from two Cotswold
district councillors who met with residents who have been affected by this
flooding. As there seemed to be crucial emissions around the flood risk
concerning the Lees -Loes II project I decided...
There's quite a bit more but thank you.
So as there seemed to be a... yeah. As there seemed to be crucial emissions around the
flood risk concerning the Lees -Loes II project I decided to review all the
flood risk assessments won the first application of the police loads 1 project through to the
final decision.
That is fine, thank you very much.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:19:52
Now, can I ask Wendy Hopkins, the agent, to speak?
Thank you.
Applicant/Agent - 0:20:09
Members, I trust you have all read and digested the response received from the Government
following your letter in regard to your five -year housing land supply position, with severe
shortfall following revisions to the standard method. A letter where you state, and I quote,
�We don�t permit speculative housing development. The tilted balance premise means that we are
to lose at appeal, costing local taxpayers tens of thousands of pounds.
Let me be clear. It isn't the government costing local people you represent. It is this committee
costing those local people their hard -earned money in not approving applications for new
housing when the government has a clear commitment to build 1 .5 million homes in this Parliament.
The government response you received states that we are in the middle of one of the most
acute housing crisis in living memory.
You were firmly told that all parts of the country, including your area, are required
to play their part and decisions made locally should be how to meet housing needs, not whether
you do so at all.
And your area is not unique in facing challenges in bringing forward a local plan that meets
the needs of your community.
So here we are today.
In front of you is an application for a sustainable form of development that will make a valuable
contribution to local housing need and the wider national housing crisis.
The proposal meets all technical requirements under the adopted local plan, including drainage
and highways, despite local concerns.
The only point of dispute is the alleged landscape impact, which is not only exaggerated but
also incorrectly balanced in decision -making.
The site forms a logical and organic extension to Chipping Camden.
The land in question does no more than gently rise, just like the existing housing at Littleworth,
and does not extend as far north as the current built form, to suggest otherwise is misleading.
The officer's reliance on the 2015 refusal is misguided. That decision was never tested
at appeal, unlike the Olympic Drive scheme, which was approved in 2017, as no harm was
found to the national landscape. The fact is, the Council cannot demonstrate a five -year
housing land supply. The tilted balance is engaged and in light of the above, the question
you must ask yourselves is, does the alleged level of harm to the national landscape provide
a strong enough reason to refuse the application. The evidence base, the 2017 appeal decision
and severe shortfall in housing land to meet requirements indicates otherwise.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you to our speakers.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:23:28
Can I ask Councillor Stone, do you want to come forward to speak?
Ward Member - 0:23:45
Yes, thank you chair and thank you colleagues here today on the planning committee for hearing
this agenda item. I would like to thank Senior Planning Officer Martin Perks for preparing
the detailed report which is included in today's papers and I very much agree with the conclusion
that has been reached and the recommendation to refuse this application.
Many of the public comments have rightly raised concerns about flooding. I have
personally witnessed live the direct impact of the recent Olympic Drive
developments located just below the proposed site. Despite the assurances in
these papers and comments from the lead local flood authority, I remain deeply
concerned about the risk of further development in this area. The Highways
reports suggest similar measures to that implemented on that Olympic Drive. Those
flood mitigation measures implemented during that development are clearly
inadequate. This development contributed to flooding of properties on Park Road
as recently as September last year. Given this recent history any additional
development in this location should be approached with extreme caution and I'm
weary of taking a similar approach as suggested to that taken at Olympic Drive
as this has proven to be wholly ineffective. We are all aware of the
situation regarding the local plan and housing supply numbers imposed by
governments however this does not give carte blanche for developers to build
anywhere. The National Planning Policy Framework is clear and still gives great
weight to the importance of designated protected areas and explicitly states
that development may still be refused where the harm to a protected area such
the national landscape provides a clear reason for doing so. This is precisely
the situation we are dealing with here. This proposal seeks to place 30 dwellings
on a rising parcel of agricultural land within the Cotswold National Landscape.
This is land that currently plays an important role in the rural setting of
the town and in the visual and experiential quality of the area for
residents, walkers and visitors alike. These proposals would be highly intrusive
and visible in a sensitive part of the AOMB. Development would unacceptably intrude into
the open countryside and have hugely detrimental impact on the approach and boundary of the
town. The National Landscape designation is not just a title, it carries with it a statutory
duty that we as a local planning authority must uphold. Section 85 of the Countryside
and Rights of Way Act 2000 requires us to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing
the natural beauty of the Cotswold National Landscape.
Clearly in this case the proposed development failed to meet these obligations.
The harm here is not speculative.
It is real, tangible, significant and everlasting.
The introduction of built form, which would urbanise what is currently an open and tranquil
rural landscape.
It would erode the character of the area and diminish the experience of those using the
public right of way that runs through the site on the way up to the start of the Cotswold
Way.
Moreover, the proposal is in direct conflict with several policies designed to safeguard
this special landscape.
Local Plan Policies EN1 states, New Development will, where appropriate, promote the protection,
conservation and enhancement of the historic and natural environment.
EN4 states, Developments will be permitted where it does not have a significant detrimental
impact on the natural and historic landscape.
EN 5 states in determining development proposals within the AONB or its setting, the conservation
and enhancement of the natural beauty of the landscape, its character and special qualities
will be given great weight.
Also policy CE 1 and CE 4 of the Cotswold National Landscape Management Plan.
These are not abstract documents, these are the tools specifically designed to enable
this authority to protect places like this from this exact kind of harm. If permitted,
this development would cause lasting and irreversible harm to a nationally protected landscape.
The adverse impacts of doing this would crucially, significantly and demonstrably outweigh any
perceived benefits. This is not responsible planning, it is not sustainable development
and it is not in line with relevant policies in the local plan or the national policy framework.
Against the backdrop of the Government imposed housing numbers and the impact that this has
had on the status of the Local Plan, this is probably the first real opportunity that
this Committee has had to demonstrate that despite this it is going to continue to use
the tools still open to them to shape, influence and control development in the District and
make robust decisions to protect our stunning landscape which makes our District so special.
I would urge colleagues on the Planning Act Committee to back the officer's well -considered recommendation and refuse this application. Thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:28:34
Thank you very much Councillor Stowe.
So now I would like to invite any questions to the officer.
Councillor Bridges.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:28:45
Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:28:49
Okay, um, it seems obvious that there's problems in Olympic Drive with flooding.
This is going to, the new development is going to create water flowing down a slope, albeit
necessarily a big slope.
Can you direct me to the comment in here, which explains how that problem is going to
be overcome?
And do we have any kind of powers to force the previous developer to make those improvements
before we say yes or no to this.
Well, this is an outline application,
Officer - 0:29:24
so ultimately the drainage scheme as a whole,
in detail, will be established by condition, sorry,
should this application be permitted.
At the moment, indicative proposals are to put a trench,
a capture trench along the northern part,
northern boundary of the application site,
so it would intercept water coming down the hillside
before it gets to this development at a controlled rate without going on to the
existing development to the south. The problem that's happened in the past with
the Olympic Drive development is they didn't instal the drainage correctly
and there's a few things they didn't do to be honest on that development.
Our water was flowing over...
There's been a few issues with that.
That was dated back to the end of 2023.
The lead local flood authority and our drainage engineers
have been out on site and they've been speaking to the developer
and got the changes made.
So hopefully that is going to stop further incidences of flood
on the Olympic dry development.
but ultimately until we get a lot of rainfall again we worse than what it is
at the moment the lead local flood authority of asked for additional
information that's been provided and they're satisfied as set out in their
comments that subject to detailed conditions and means of dealing with the
water on site and through the cut drain at the northern part of the site that
that can be satisfactorily addressed and prevent flooding to this development and to the Olympic
Drive and extending down to Park Road. All I can do is we have to take account of the
technical consultation.
I don't understand because I've seen the photographs of the flooding and it was quite bad, but
that was prior to the work that had been done since, so I don't know whether it's been flooding
since then.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:31:37
Thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:31:40
Thank you.
Councillor Caul.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:31:46
I just wanted to ask Martin, because the proposed site lies within the Cotswold National Landscape,
where I think it's paragraph 176 of the MPPF mandates
that great weight should be given to conserving
and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty.
How your refusal, how easy was that to,
so how straightforward was that to come to?
And was it a balance or quite heavily weighted
and you're pinning it into that refusal?
Officer - 0:32:22
We just make an assessment based on experience and history of the site and our knowledge of something in the past.
In this instance, we engaged an independent landscape consultant to look at it.
He's got a fresh pair of eyes. He wasn't involved in the previous appeal decision, so he's come with a fresh pair of eyes as well.
I have concerns about it and he's kind of reiterated those independently in my views and he's come with a similar conclusion.
So it's not down to one person or whatever, there's a number of us who have looked at it.
Clearly the local residents have a concern as well.
When the appeal was allowed, prior to the current local plan, prior to policy DS4 in existence,
also the legislation or statute duty regarding national landscapes has changed.
We now have to further the purpose of conserving the natural landscape rather
than we used to just have regard to it.
So there is a greater weight now to conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the landscape
as compared to when the appeal scheme was looked at.
Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:33:19
And also there were previous applications I believe for a much larger development.
Obviously we had the smaller development in 2017 and now this potential development.
That all adds up to a pretty big development, doesn't it, if you add them both together.
Officer - 0:33:36
It's similar to the size of the one we refused in 2015.
So, yes, I mean we're getting back to what was, I mean clearly as the Speaker said that
didn't go to appeal, but clearly we expressed concern then, again with different landscape
offices about that level of development.
So cumulatively we are getting back to what the scheme was in 2015.
Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:33:56
So it's kind of like a major, very large development through the back door.
I will put it in my single mouth.
Thank you.
Councillor Fowles.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:34:11
Councillor David Fowles - 0:34:12
I would just like to pick up on the comment that has already been made by, or questions
already been asked by Nick about the whole flood zone issue.
It seems in reading the report that this is categorised as flood zone one, yet all the
empirical evidence from residents from the ward member from the objector is that this
is this this land floods very very badly and this is just going to exacerbate that. Do
we have any ability to review the flood zone one? It seems to me that we have applications
historically that come before us and we look at maps about flood zones and so on and we
all know that water doesn't automatically come down in the same place as it used to
It seems to me that we've got all this evidence that says that this floods and yet the LLFA
have basically placed constraints on you.
That's question number one.
Question number two is the agent, and I'll come back to the comment under comments about
the agents speech, but said that the tilted balance that impact on the character and appearance
of the national landscape, you feel that the tilted balance is very much in favour of that
and she was arguing that with the targets that we've been set that it isn't.
So could you just comment on that as well?
So it's this Flood Zone 1, everybody that knows that area,
residents etc say it floods. Flood Zone 1, LFA, they seem to be out of touch with what's going on.
Can we influence that? And the second one is to do with the tilted balance.
Thank you, Martin.
Officer - 0:35:50
The site itself is sloping land so it doesn't flood.
what tends to happen is the water flows over the site, it's got a bit of a clay base and
goes down and then it used to collect where the drive development is or go down onto Park
Road where there's been problems in the past with flooding. So it's not a case in itself
that the site floods, it's just that water tends to run over the surface. I think the
EA did updates to all their flood zone maps a few months ago and it still stays as flood
zone one so it's not. The issues have arisen, like I say, it's in the area because water
flows down the hillside and collects elsewhere. So the issue in this instance is whether by
building here you are going to exacerbate those problems elsewhere by diverting water
in different directions or causing problems or increasing surface water because there's
more harsh surfaces and more water then flows into the local area. But if you put the drainage
measures in like the catch of drains or the attenuation features which the LLFA are requesting
then potentially that can be stopped.
But that's reliant on conditions and them agreeing the details later on.
It's not like the LLFA don't understand this site.
They've been there, they've been involved since the flooding.
So they know and they have seen it first hand
and their response is still based on that.
Their experience of the site and the area
is not something they're just looking at in Gloucester and never been there.
They've seen the implications of the flooding.
So in this instance we are going with their advice in this matter.
In terms of the tilted balance, yes we don't have a handwritten land supply and weight has to be given to the supply of housing.
Paragraph 11 D1 is quite clear. You grant planning permission unless something like a national landscape provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed.
So in other words, harm to a landscape, national landscape, which is an important asset, can in itself provide a strong reason to fuse a planning application.
In this instance we think that harm, it provides a strong reason to fuse this
planning application notwithstanding the fact that we need to provide, or the
council needs to provide additional housing. It's not a free -for -all in terms
of new housing, there are a lot of still caveats, they still have to comply with
all the things in the MPPF. You don't just, it doesn't simply go
significantly demonstrably, adverse impacts have to be demonstrated to
justify refusal it simply says paragraph d1 is not armed to a national landscape
can provide a strong reason to refuse a planning application so in this instance
we think we have that strong reason so that's where we're coming from I don't
think it's unreasonable in terms of that view and if you know applicant takes a
different view that's fine but our view and taking professional advice on the
matter from landscape consultant is that it does provide a strong reason in this
instance to refuse the application.
Thank you.
Councillor Coleman.
Thank you, chair.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:38:52
I have a little difficulty because at the beginning of the report, it says under paragraph
2 .1 that this application is before us because it falls into the major development category
as defined in the Town and Country Planning Development Management Procedure England Order
2015 sounds like a parliamentary order now if this one's a major application on
that basis why are we arguing about whether it's a major application or not
on the basis of a subjective judgement by an inspector for a separate site which
okay adjoins and coincidentally also had 30 dwellings as with the nature of
Officer - 0:39:34
planning, things are a bit more complicated than they need be.
Major development as in terms of registration determination purposes, if it is over 10 houses
or over a hectare or whatever, that constitutes major development for purposes and that is
why it needs to come to planning committee because it is in excess of those thresholds.
Major development in the AOMB is dealt with under a different section of the national
planning policy framework and that is a more subjective matter. You look at whether the
nature of the application constitutes major development and does it undermine the purposes
for which that landscape or national landscape was designated in the first instance. So it's
dealt with in a different matter than simply the kind of tickboxing exercise set out in
the development management procedure order. But they are two different things. You can
be major for the purposes of registration and dealing with it in 13 weeks, but not major
for the purposes of causing harm to the national landscape. They are two different things and
that's why this is where this comes out. So that's why in the last one the Planning Inspector
didn't consider this was major development for the purposes of the paragraph 90 of the
MPBF, but it was major for the purposes of registration and determination.
So are we allowed to take the view or do you take the view?
That's my question.
Does our planning officers professionally take the view
that since this is an elevated site,
far more visible than the first phase,
or sorry, the previous development,
and which itself had to go to appeal,
and I think we might have been a bit surprised
at the result of the appeal, I don't know.
Does the additional issue of elevation allow us to consider this as a major development
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:41:31
because it has a more significant impact on the AOMB?
Officer - 0:41:34
It's a consideration, yes, but in the context of 30 houses, in the context of Chippin Camden
and where this is located, that we don't think it is of a scale that would constitute,
It undermines the purposes for which the landscape is designated as a cultural and national landscape.
It can cause harm to the character and appearance of the national landscape without necessarily
being major development.
So that's where we come from in this instance.
We don't think it is major.
Major would generally be if they were trying to put like a thousand houses on the edge
of Chippenham or something like that.
That's when we start to get a bit more concerned.
Like I say, the previous planning inspector didn't think 30 on the other site was major.
Yes, this one is more elevated, but it's a similar context.
So that's why we're not saying it's major for the purposes of that paragraph.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:42:28
I appear to have gone down a blind alley and I'm very grateful to the Office for taking
this time to explain it.
The second point I wanted to ask about, it seems a bit to me as if we're doing something,
we're not trying to do something in order to make this application in some way acceptable,
that we're trying to use it and conditions applied to this site to ameliorate or mitigate
the various adverse effects caused by giving permission and building the previous adjacent
site. And I didn't think we were allowed to do that. Are we in effect trying to go as far as we
can to prevent things getting worse without actually trying to put things right that have
been caused by previous development?
Officer - 0:43:10
No, I don't think we're insisting that this development does things to rectify things
that have happened on the adjacent development. What the measures requested by the LFA and
other bodies is just to ensure that this development doesn't cause problems outside the site,
flooding outside the site. So regardless of whether the Olympic Drive development was
or not, we would still be seeking the same measures in terms of onsite drainage and attenuation.
So the purpose is that this development should not make the situation any worse than it presently
is.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Judd.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:43:47
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:43:51
I will be very quick, Artyn.
I think you have sort of answered this, but to be definitive, if this application went
to the planning inspectorate, would it be taken into account as an accumulation on top
of the last application which was approved by the planning inspectorate?
Officer - 0:44:19
It would be taken into account. It would be a matter of consideration, but it would ultimately
for the planning inspector determine whether that was cumulatively there was an issue that
would be a matter for the planning inspector. What I was getting at is accumulation part
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:44:37
Officer - 0:44:38
of the policies? Well we look at the context and clearly yes there has been a development
adjacent to this and that has changed the character of the area but ideally you're looking
at the but that's been previously been determined to be acceptable so you're going to have to
still demonstrate that this additional amount of housing going up the hillside is harmful
in its own right. Clearly a previous application has been deemed to be acceptable.
Councillor Fales again.
Thanks Chairman, thank you for letting me come back and as your guidance sources I'm
Councillor David Fowles - 0:45:08
not going over old ground that other colleagues have mentioned but I'd just like Martin to
expand on, there are actually three reasons for refusal on pages 148 and 149. We have
been talking an awful lot about the impact on the national beauty and et cetera of the
landscape and a lot has been said about flooding and indeed the results of what happened with
Olympic Drive. But under 2 and 3 it says section 106 legal agreement has not been completed,
So no mechanism to secure provision of affordable housing, which seems to me to be an error,
a fundamental error.
And the other one is in relation to the conservation of habitats and species, which given the location,
I would also think is important.
Could you just expand on those two?
They seem to me to be really important points.
Officer - 0:45:59
Yeah, the third reason for refusal set out earlier, the applicants provided sufficient
information now, so we've withdrawn that reason.
The second one is, yes, it's not uncommon because Section 106 agreements can take quite
a long time to deal with, so we don't tend to delay issuing a decision until that's resolved.
So that's not uncommon to not have a Section 106 signed and completed at this stage.
If it goes to appeal, then it would normally be done as part of the appeal process and
the Section 106.
It would normally be dealt with through the appeal process and the applicant as part of
that lead up to the appeal.
Yes.
Yes.
It's not an insurmountable thing.
It's just something that takes a long time.
Councillor Call.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:46:42
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:46:44
I hope I'm not going over all ground here,
just regarding the flood risk.
I don't live in Chippenhampton.
I live actually just on the outskirts of Chippenhampton.
There's still sandbags all the way along Park Road
still from those houses that were flooded last September.
The irony is those houses back onto the River Cam, which I don't think they've ever been
flooded by the river, but they've been flooded by the water coming off, coming down Dyer's
Lane or coming off this development down Dyer's Lane as it goes up to Davis Hill.
Because it sits on elevated ground with poor existing drainage, will those, potentially
those increased hard surfaces from development, exasperate surface water runoff down towards
Park Road and along there? No, the intention would be you'd have on -site
attenuation so you'd have some sort of storage on the site so water from the
house services will be directed there and then it gets released at a controlled
rate which is less than existing Greenfield rates to an existing pipe
which would then connect. I think the intention would be down Dyer's Lane to
the west which would then go down to Park Road. In 2007 after the floods, sorry
of works done on fleet alleviation around the park where in Westington Mill area so
that decade later there was various attenuation done there which was meant
to address some of the water coming down the hillside. Thank you.
Any other questions? Councillor Bridges.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:48:19
Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:48:22
Okay this is a question relating to page 129 which is talking about the public
right -of -way and it's saying that I think it's saying that this is a part of
a link between Chipping Camden to the Cotswold Way and onwards to Fish Hill and
Davis Hill and there's other comments about public rights of way here. How
close to the Cotswold Way is it? Are many many people's enjoyment of the
Cotswold Way going to be spoilt by this development?
I can't speak for people who use...
I mean clearly it will be affected by building a housing development across a footpath.
I mean this isn't part of the Cotswold Way, that's on to the north of the town.
It's a few hundred yards on the top of the hill.
So yeah, this is one of the routes from the top when you go up to the...
do the Olympics and then you can come down Dyes Lane and through this footpath
or you can come down by the Cotswold Bay so there are various routes back from
the top area above the town which is probably a few hundred
yards away. But some walkers will be affected or they will? Yeah I mean it's a public railway and it is used by pedestrians.
Officer - 0:49:41
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:49:42
Any other questions? Can I ask just a couple of questions? First of all I noticed that
7 Trent Water had been asked for a response. Are they involved in the water supply or is
Officer - 0:50:00
it entirely Thames? Thames Water deal with water supply and 7 Trent deal with the disposal
so it's a bit complicated.
So they just, I think they normally just ask for a condition,
you know, confirming the capacity is there before you do any occupation.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:50:15
Okay, thank you very much, that's a bit complicated.
And then the other thing that I picked up on was, on page 132, 10, 51, 15,
It looks as though part of the development, the planning permission for Olympic Drive
that was allowed to appeal included a green corridor and buffer space along its northern
edge, which it sounds as if that would be compromised by the new development. Is that
a part of a reason for refusing it because it's a compromise it's a
condition that's been imposed on another development now the development won't
Officer - 0:50:59
proposed development won't go into the Olympic Drive site other than to use the
access road so the green space that's north of stickler place will stay as it
is at the moment it's just that the word compromising its original role and
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:51:15
Officer - 0:51:18
purpose. Yes, I mean it was originally designed to be a bit of a transition between that housing
development and the countryside so you're kind of not getting that you're just building
across in front of that. Okay, now Councillor Coleman has told me that it's more appropriate
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:51:34
to say now open, ask members to join in a debate rather than asking for comments so
this is now the comments or debate section whichever you prefer. Madam Chair
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:51:49
I was quoting from the independent review of our planning service by the
Planning Advisory Service a few months ago in which that was their suggestion. I
don't know if it made it into writing that it is better to say debate at this
stage rather than to ask for comments. In doing so I'd urge people not to rush to
any proposal but I'm looking forward to hearing the comments of colleagues.
But this does seem to be a sensitive site to me. It seems to be a very good
test of whether we can in fact through the planning process substantially
protect the Cotswold National landscape and I look forward to hearing the views
of others.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:52:39
So are we debating or commenting or what?
Whichever you prefer.
I think I'll comment.
I'm rather relieved that we do comments after questions because I personally was a bit shocked by the agent
basically lecturing us on the housing target and then saying that we were wasting residents' money,
which I found personally not acceptable. I want that minuted.
I'm not going to be rude because I don't think it's appropriate, but I was a bit shocked.
and I wanted to say that as far as I'm concerned, since the government gave us those targets
at every parish council meeting I've been at, I've been told please fight that target
and make sure that if we do have development that it's in the right place.
And so when the case officer says the government's revised target is not a free -for -all to build houses wherever,
we have a duty of care to make sure that we protect the national landscape and I
think the board member when he said it's down to us to shape and control that
process hit the nail on the head so I personally would be supporting the
officers recommendation and I would like to congratulate the officer on the
robust nature of his report and but I was really still very shocked by what
said earlier by the applicant, sorry the agent. So you're putting forward that
proposal to accept the officer's recommendation? A proposal that we
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:54:21
accept the officer's recommendation yes thank you. Thank you very much.
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:54:29
Councillor Judd. Thank you chair. Well I think the case officer has been
unbelievably robust on this. He had his own gut instinct that this site was
in a sensitive position in the Cotswolds,
and I can see from the photographs
how beautiful it is there.
You know, a photograph doesn't lie,
but I don't think that is what we are here for.
This is what this planning committee is here for.
We're in the Cotswolds, and it is our job
to protect the beauty of the Cotswolds
for the residents and for the future.
and I support Councillor Fowles's concerns about the nature of the agents rhetoric, which
I should suggest would be more appropriate to the benefits of the site and not our role
as councillors or letters from this council written to this council, which is frankly
not irrelevant but inappropriate and I just support David Fowles's proposal to
support the offices recommendation to refuse and I second it. Thank you very
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:55:54
much before we proceed to the vote, Councillor Caulle would you like to make a
comment. Yes, yes. And Councillor Bridges? It's a comment, a debating sort of comment.
Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:56:06
Yes, a debating comment. I think this site is not just sensitive, it's highly sensitive,
it's elevated, it's visually prominent, it's in direct view of Dover's Hill which I believe
is under National Trust management. It's one of the most iconic vantage points in the Cotswolds
That approach down Dias Lane to Chippen Camden on the left hand side will be completely dominated
by this second part of this non -major development.
I think it will cause unacceptable harm to the landscape, the character and the well
managed tourism value of the area.
I believe that there is a flooding risk.
I'm a runner.
I generally go running around Chippen Camden most mornings and in the winter you don't
want to go running up Dave's Hill because that field is a bit of a quagmire.
That's obviously my personal opinion about the flooding but I really do
support David Fowles' recommendation and Councillor Judd's seconding of this
and thank you to Martin the officer for an incredibly thorough and robust
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:57:16
refusal recommendation. Thank you. Councillor Bridges did you want to
Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:57:22
contribute to the debate. I would just like to say that when I visited
Chipping Camden as a tourist I loved it. It was one of the most beautiful places in
the Cotswolds and if we can defend some of our places from uncontrolled
population growth then I'd love it. There's one small part of Chipping Camden
which was like a council estate that was walking around really substandard
housing and it really showed and I just felt whoever allowed that development
you know should be shot and I totally there's the same person here this this
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:58:06
is undoubtedly going to change Chipping Camden for the worst thank you
councillor Coleman thank you chair my first contribution was more a point of
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:58:13
explanation. I think what really stands out and what persuades me that we are on
strong ground is a contribution of our landscape consultant. It's ironic really
because our landscape consultant provided something like five pages for
the previous application on the agenda which has since been withdrawn very
wisely in my own opinion and it is full of content and clear statement and clear
challenge to I'm no doubt an equally well qualified consultant who provided
the LVIA for the applicant. Nevertheless, I think we have enough arguments here from
professionals, not just councillors, that ensure that a refusal today is a robust and
defensible position.
Thank you very much. Does anyone – oh, Councillor Layton.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:59:11
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:59:13
Thank you. Well, really, I'm supporting what has already been said. But I mean, the MPPF,
the current MPPF does say we're supposed to conserve and enhance the national landscape.
This is within our current local plan policies as well, including in the insensitive impact
on the edge of a town. I know this is an outline application, and the houses may move a little
bit but we are supposed to be looking at sensitive views into an estate and then they get a bit
denser as they go backwards out of sight slightly. It's supported this application, sorry, this
paper and the refusal reasons are supported by the National Landscape Trust because their
policies are written in here as well. And I think tilted balance, I can't see any,
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:00:16
that it is giving any benefit to the public on this application. Thank you. If
no one else wants to make a contribution, we have a proposer to accept the
officer's recommendation to refuse. That's from Councillor Fowles and it's
seconded by Councillor Judd. So we will go to the vote.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:00:45
Thank you. So that's unanimous. We have resolved unanimously to accept the officer's recommendation
to refuse this application.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:01:09
Can I just ask you to settle down again after a little bit of movement? We are going to
Number 10?
Agenda item 10.
Agenda item, thank you very much.
Page 159.
On page 159, thank you very much.
Which is for the erection of 98 dwellings,

10 25/01717/FUL - Land West of Hatherop Road

including landscaping and a sophisticated infrastructure
at land west of Hetherup Park, Fairford, Gloucestershire.
This again falls into the major development category.
The case officer is Martin Perks,
and the ward member is Michael Van.
So can I ask Mr Pax once more to...
Just a bit closer to the microphone.
Officer - 1:02:36
Thank you, Chair. I'll carry on.
Yes, there's been a few back and forth with Thames Water
since I did the original report.
They initially said no occupation of dwellings until foul surface drainage upgrades were
undertaken. They then changed their mind and said that wasn't applicable anymore. Their
latest comments are no, we want to go back to that condition. They provided a further
response this morning that just had some supplementary notes on the bottom of the response that was
of the 8th of September which just says water comments as per comments on
approved application 2203770 for 87 dwellings there is sufficient capacity
to 50 dwellings beyond this reinforcement works are required so that
relates to water comments which relates to water supply and that's the condition
we've got in the report at the moment which says no occupation above 50
dwellings for water supply or water network issues but what the sewage water
infrastructure capacity. The condition recommended as stated in the report, which is no more
than 87 dwellings shall be occupied until the infrastructure capacity is put in place
and that would be agreed with Thames Water ultimately. But that's the condition we're
now recommending based on the fallback position arising from the 87 dwellings that have already
got permission and which can be built out. Also, we've had no objection from the lead
local flood authority subject to conditions. So those conditions we'd request were incorporated
into the decision. Applicants also requested a couple of tweaks to another couple of conditions
on the decision notice. So if we could have delegated authority to amend those accordingly
to new grant permission for this application, then that would be welcomed. It would take
a little while for decision to be issued because there's still the section 106 legal agreement
to be resolved and that's in train at the moment.
But I'll go through the site because we've had a few applications in the last couple
of years on it.
Our members may not be familiar because it hasn't been here before, so it's just the
change to the constitution means this type of application now has to come to committee.
It's on the northern edge of the town of Fairford, adjacent to the town's development boundary.
It's an existing agricultural field.
It's allocated in the neighbourhood plan for residential development of around 80 houses.
So it's outside the local plan development boundary but within the town council's development
boundary as set out in their neighbourhood plan.
This is the site again showing the field and the fields around it and existing housing
to the south.
The schools are to the west of the site.
Approaching down Hazaret Road towards the town, the application site's on the right
So there's a reasonable degree of screening by existing hedgerows, which would be retained.
Again looking from the public right -of -way northwards to the site, from the public right -of -way
to the south, sorry.
And again looking along the public right -of -way with the application site on the left.
So it just gives you an indication there's a reasonable degree of screening from the
public right -of -way of the site.
The public right -of -way is now included in the application site, which is different from
the outline application.
The applicant has control over that piece of land now as well.
So this is the application proposal as it stands at the moment for the 98 houses.
It broadly follows what was agreed as part of the outline and reserve matters application which has recently been approved.
Large amounts of open space around the edge of the site including allotments and community gardens, kick about areas, play space and attenuation features.
Landscape area has been included in the development as well, following discussions previously
with officers.
And this is kind of a spot of difference drawing really.
The one on the left is the current proposal and the one on the right is the approved reserve
matters.
So there's 11 extra dwellings on the run on the left.
It's large, the main change is largely in the central and southwestern kind of parts
where there's some terraces and some semi -detached have been introduced in place of detached
dwellings.
Current proposal is also for an increased number of one and three bed units and a
reduction in five bed units compared to the 87 unit scheme. So in that respect we
consider a better mix now of housing and one that better reflects local needs.
House types again, they're similar to what was already previously approved as
part of the Reserve Matters application. We had a lot of discussions with the
applicants at the time and a lot of them have been simplified to better reflect
character of the local area. They're all two -storey but very consistent with the
surrounding scale of development. That's it, thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:07:42
Thank you very much. Now can I ask the speakers to come forward? First of all
Councillor Richard Harrison for the town council. I don't know whether you consider
yourself a town or a parish, probably a town. We have a representation from an objector
Rod Hill, which is a skippable read for us. And then we have Matthew Gill, the applicant
agent. Thank you very much.
Good. You've seen how it – yes, this is slightly chilly. Yes.
I'll submit.
Yes.
Very friendly.
Oh, you're friendly. That's nice to know. We'll do a double act.
Can I just just remind you again you have three minutes to speak you've seen how it works
We won't actually cut you off mid -sentence, but we won't let you
Go on
For too long, okay
So if you'd like to start
First we start now
Fair for Town Council supports this application
Town/Parish Council - 1:08:41
subject to appropriate conditions since it better achieves the objectives of policy FNP14
in the FERFORD neighbourhood plan, which is to provide for the local housing need and
a bit more in the most sustainable location in FERFORD. It provides a much better housing
mix than the previously approved reserve matters and also increases the number, making an even
better contribution to the housing supply in the district.
The type of construction apparently gives significantly improved energy efficiency over the standard
and therefore satisfied the Fairford Neighbourhood Plan policy in this respect.
We have a minor concern about whether the tree planting round the site boundaries really meets point D of our policy,
although officers seem satisfied, however this can presumably be addressed by the Biodiversity Gain Plan or later.
The key issue for us is the capacity or otherwise
of Fairford's sewage treatment system to accommodate
this development without increasing the incidents
of pollution of the river cone and areas downstream
and sewage flooding to some residents.
This was addressed by our policy, FMP5, which asks
as a minimum for a binding commitment to providing
the necessary capacity before new housing
development is approved.
In the event a Grampian condition was opposed
on the original outline consent instead. For whatever reason, possibly misunderstanding
within Thames Water, this was dis -applied to file sewage treatment in the Section 73
consent granted in February 2024. However, it is clear from subsequent discussions in
our joint working group with Thames Water that this is a real constraint.
Despite the necessary upgrading of the Fairford sewage treatment works being part of the WINEP
delays enforcement programme, the Government's position over Thames Water's problems means
that there is still a very real uncertainty that this particular project will go ahead
and be completed by the currently projected date of October 2027. This situation is significantly
different from that in the Northumbrian Water Appeal referred to in the Whitburn Appeal
decision. Given that this situation isn't entirely within Thames Water's control
and that the consent has already been granted for 87 dwellings without the
Grampian condition, it's extremely reasonable as well as highly desirable
to impose a Grampian condition on the additional houses beyond the 87 as
recommended in the officer's report, at least as a backup. Ideally we would
expect a binding commitment by Thames Water to the upgrade completion. It could
we really rely on that?
Thank you very much.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:11:33
Can I ask Ms Gibson to read out Mr Hill's representation?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Julia Gibson, Officer - 1:11:41
I believe the original planning application was for 86 dwellings.
No indication had been given on the original application regarding the additional sewage
disposal via Thames Water relating to these dwellings.
Until Thames Water are able to give clear assurance that adequate disposal, not in the river Colne, has been made for these additional dwellings, then I remain firmly opposed to this development.
I am also concerned that Lovers Lane could be illuminated. It's a lovely country path and illumination could be construed as the first steps to conversion to a highway.
Clarity is therefore needed at the outset upon any public access, including future highways
from the Hatherup's Road development to Lee Field Road and therefore Farmer's School.
I am also concerned that the car parking spaces on the new development are inadequate.
Many dwellings will have two vehicles, coupled with visitor parking spaces.
I feel that provision for at least 150 vehicles on the new site will be needed, particularly
with a large school in the immediate locality. At peak school times, the local roads are
already very congested and car parking for school access is, I'm afraid there's a word
missing. My severe reservations related to the original 86 dwelling planning application,
clearly 98 dwellings will exacerbate these issues even further.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:13:07
Now can I ask Mr Gilles?
That was pronounced correctly.
Oh, did it?
It is unusual, I know.
Oh, okay.
That was correct pronunciation.
Oh, excellent.
Good.
I am so pleased about that.
Anyhow, you have your three minutes.
Applicant/Agent - 1:13:23
Thank you very much and good afternoon members.
You will be pleased to know that I will try and keep this as short as possible.
This application comes before you following a very detailed programme that CARA have undertaken to ensure that we are actively engaging with the local community.
Albeit the site already has planning consent as Martin has outlined and reserve matters.
Following discussions during that process with the local community and in particular the town council, it was pretty clear that there was a desire to seek some further improvements.
and we believe firmly that this application delivers those improvements.
They are contained in the author's report but I suppose the high -level summary is
there's an extra 11 units to help towards the council's housing land
supply position. Within that there are four additional affordable units. There
is a greatly improved housing mix and as Mr. Perks said, there's a reduction in the
larger units and a much greater focus on the smaller units which ties in with the
plan requirement and the housing need within the local area. And then in addition to that
there's also the upgrade works to the footpath that's just been mentioned.
Thames Water position is sensitive and we appreciate that as a developer and we are
happy to accept the proposed conditions that Mr Perks and the town council are supporting.
and that's covering both the foul capacity
or foul connexion, I should say,
and also the water connexion as well.
So if those are mirrored from the,
or numbers are mirrored from the outline reserve matters,
we would be willing to accept those as well.
Just covering off a couple of points that we mentioned,
tree planting, we're more than happy post committee
to work with officers to look at additional tree planting
on that northern boundary.
more than happy to continue our involvement and engagement with the town council to achieve that as well.
So if Martin felt that could be dealt with under delegated powers,
we can look at a revised drawing with increased tree planting on that northern boundary.
We're happy to look at that.
In terms of the objector comments, just a few highlights from me.
Lovers Lane, yes, that is looking to be upgraded.
Again, that is a request largely from the local community.
We don't control all of it.
We can only upgrade the bit that we control,
but we're happy to do that.
Lighting is sensitive, that is correct.
There are bats using the site,
so there's going to have to be a carefully designed solution
for both the resurfacing and the lighting,
and that is controlled by conditions
that your officers have suggested.
In terms of the car parking standards,
Martin may be able to help me here
and actually provide the exact number,
because I don't have it in front of me,
but I believe we've actually got over 150 spaces across the site anyway.
Regardless, it does meet the highway parking standards
and is supported by the County Council.
And then finally, Lovers Lane being upgraded to a highway in the future.
As I said, we only control part of it, and certainly that is not our intention.
So overall, you know, we've been through a hugely positive process
with the local community and particularly town councils and your officers.
and a great thanks to Martin and Justin for their assistance on the application and hope
that you can support the application as per your officer's recommendation.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:16:51
Thank you.
If you would like to go back to your seats, thank you very much for your contributions.
Councillor van, who is the ward member, is now going to speak.
You've got five minutes.
You think you know that already.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:17:11
Public Speaker - 1:17:19
I want to put the application into context
by setting out what has been approved for this site.
I failed as I started.
Ward Member - 1:17:31
I'm now starting properly.
I want to put the application, my fault, into context by setting out what has been approved
for this site and the position with Thames Water.
The site is the land allocated for residential development in Fairford in the Fairford neighbourhood
plan.
Nearly 90 % of those voting approved the plan in a 2023 referendum.
The site is outside both Fairford's conservation area and the Cotswold National Landscape.
The planning history of the site is that CDC has already granted
outline planning consent for residential development of 87 units.
The plan seeks to deliver sustainable development.
This site is the most sustainable location without increasing flood risk.
The plan provides that planning permission will only be granted to a development to be connected to the sewer network
if it can accommodate the additional demand for sewage disposal,
either in its existing form or through planned improvements to the system.
This is to ensure both the environment and the amenity of residents are not adversely affected.
Thames Water has confirmed this can be achieved for this development.
In 2023 Thames Water acknowledged the problems of sewer and surface water flooding and that
it was working on a drainage strategy for Fairford.
Thames Water is a third party for this planning application and is not represented here today.
The planning permission is sought by Carla Holmes for the proposed development and not
for securing water or waste services.
Thames Water considers there's already sufficient capacity for 50 dwellings,
and beyond this, reinforcement works are required.
Thames Water know they must deliver.
The financial problems of Thames Water are well known.
It is for Thames Water to resolve these themselves.
This is not for CDC as the local planning authority.
This planning application, if granted, would secure an additional 11 houses,
including four more affordable units, with a mix of houses better suited for
Fairford than envisaged in the existing consent. The advice of CDC's Planning
Department is that consent should be granted. I composed this before some of
the shenanigans going on in recent days. Unfortunately I've turned out to be
Correct. It's for those behind me to determine whether or not I've shown myself to be biassed.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:20:33
Thank you very much, Councillor Vann. Can we take legal advice?
Did you feel that Councillor Vann is biassed or would you like him to continue?
Please determine.
Leonie Woodward, Legal Services - 1:20:43
Yes, it is for yourself to decide whether you are predetermined or not, but from what
you have already shown you might well be.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:21:00
If you're predisposed, that's one thing isn't it, but if you're predetermined that's another.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:21:10
Thank you.
We will now throw the floor open to questions.
Councillor Foulse, did you have your hand up?
Thank you, Chairman.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:21:24
One of the concerns raised in the report was a sentence around the amnesia of the
The school and the doctors surgery in Fairford, I think this is a great application.
I drive past that every day, twice, but that notwithstanding, it's a lot of houses and
I'm just concerned about the impact on the school.
and unless I can't find it in the report,
we don't seem to have a view on what's going on with farmers.
My experience with farmers, having had that boring
for England, two sets of children go there,
is that it is oversubscribed,
and I don't know whether we've got an update on that.
The same is true of the doctor's surgery,
and I don't know if we've got an update on that.
So that's question number one.
Question number two is on page 217 when the LLFA talk about
that the responsibility for water pollution is the
environment agency.
We talked a lot about Thames Water and holding them to
account and we all know the experience that Fairford had
with flooding there.
But I wonder what dialogue there's been with the EA and
what commitment we've got from them.
So two questions.
One is infrastructure in relation to the school and
doctor's surgery and the other is in relation to the EA.
I note that on three, item three on page 217,
there is a sill element here.
So is there a dialogue about that money
possibly going towards the school?
Could you just give us an update?
Thank you.
Officer - 1:23:13
Yes, Gloucester County Council have confirmed
they don't request an education contribution.
The school do not request an education contribution
for this application.
They're satisfied this capacity at the school
to cater for this development going forward.
So that's becoming a bit of a pattern.
I think birth rates are dropping.
So we're getting that a lot now from the County Council.
So they aren't requesting a education contribution,
just a library contribution of 19 ,000 pound.
So we're satisfied there is sufficient capacity
at the school to accommodate this development.
The NHS, again, haven't commented, but that's not unusual.
We don't consult them normally.
If there was an issue,
They would normally be in touch with us, but they haven't commented in terms of GPs.
The SIL money would be, as the town council has a neighbourhood plan, they are entitled
to I think 20 % of any SIL money automatically and they can spend that where they wish to
for reasonable planning matters or infrastructure projects within the parish.
So that's it.
Sorry, I've lost my train of thought.
The Environment Agency aren't a statutory consultee for this application. It's not something they would comment on.
If there's water being released from this development into watercourses, then that's a separate matter for the EA to investigate under their licencing permit controls and things.
But it's not, they're not a statutory consultee for this planning application. They just come back and say, it's not, we don't get involved.
Thank you. Councillor Caul.
Thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:24:45
Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:24:47
It's just regarding 10 .15 about the dislocation is partly in lieu of two other sites.
Was there any reason for those two other sites to be either discounted or this site takes
precedence over those?
Officer - 1:25:06
I think one got put into a special scientific interest, so it made it pretty much impossible
to develop.
I'm not sure about the other one I think it made to do something to do with access
there was just no way get access to it so the local plan process decided to
deallocate those the time council moving forward thought this site was a good
option as an alternative to that but also this one would allow more housing
as well to meet its needs so this was there was reasonable grounds that those
two sites would never have been able to be developed thank you yeah because they
Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:25:35
they only add up to 61 houses don't they yeah.
Councillor Wilkinson. I thought I'd try and say something this afternoon might as well get over and done with.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:25:45
Councillor Tristan Wilkinson - 1:25:47
I'm the ward member for South Fairford where the sewage works is so a lot of
the comments I think have already been addressed I guess two things I'm looking
One is Thames Water have got a dubious track record of postponing upgrades to this particular sewage works.
And the consequences to that could be quite severe.
So there's some people around Hawcot who regularly have their homes flooded.
And some of the impact on the surrounding areas are substantial.
There's a particular couple, one of them has a terminal illness and he's literally
spending the last months of his life wallowing around in sewage in his own home, which I
think is unacceptable on any metric that we can imagine.
So I'm really looking for the assurances that we can get from Thames Water that the
upgrades will get done within a timely manner.
The other one, Martin, is a question for you because part of my ward covers lechlades as
and I'm aware of a substantial application that's going to be coming forward in Letchlade
for around 120 houses that have cited farmers' school as the secondary school for that.
So I'm interested in, do we look at catchment areas?
So farmers might have current capacity for this particular development,
but very soon we're going to have another development,
and I'm interested in how these things balance out,
because at what point do we get to a moment where we say we are full and we can no longer
build family homes that rely on access to a particular facility, whether it be farmers,
doctor's surgery or primary school?
Officer - 1:27:37
In terms of the latter one, that's primarily a matter for the County Council Education
Service.
We consult those and they provide a response based on the planning applications coming
in and any pre -application inquiries as well, they've got an indication of those.
So we rely on those and then they would factor in the, I mean all they would normally do
is if there is a capacity issue they would request a financial contribution which would
go to infrastructure improvements at the school, so like contribution to an extension or something
like that.
So it's generally not a case of an objection, it's just a case we request a financial contribution
to improve the facilities at that school.
but ultimately we're guided by the Education Authority and its catchment areas and things like that.
That's what happened with Lechlade, I think recently, with the one that was refused on the western edge of the town.
They say there wasn't, I think, capacity at the school and the town, but potentially it could be accommodated at schools elsewhere.
So they also look at that as well, in terms it doesn't necessarily all go to that school, it could go to other locations, other schools as well,
and they'd have to look at that in terms of contributions to public school transport and things.
So it's quite a complicated matter but it's primarily we're dependent on the school.
With Thames Water, yes, it's a difficult situation.
Ultimately the matter is one dealt with under the Water Industry Act
and it's a matter for the developer in Thames Water to sort out the connexion and any agreement there.
Regardless of what this planning permission says, the applicant still has to go and get agreement with Thames Water
to connect their houses to that system.
So if Thames Water is having significant problems then they can delay that connexion and you
wouldn't be able to occupy the houses, it wouldn't comply with building regulations
or whatever.
So there are other things there and I think if you can go down the route of planning then
trying to control things outside the control of planning and that's what when I put that
appeal decision in the report it was covering that really we shouldn't be duplicating other
controls available under other regimes such as environment agency controls or health and
Safety Act or Water Industry Act controls, they are primarily for other parties to resolve.
We just have to be reasonably satisfied that we are not going to make things worse and
in this instance by putting the condition of no more than 87 that means anything above
what we have already got approval for will be controlled. So it shouldn't make it worse
than what we have already got permission for in that respect. So hopefully that gives you
a bit of assurance. I think I know Richard Harris and the Tank Council are going to be
meeting Thames Water again shortly and it's something that is a major issue.
So all I can say is keep pressing Thames Water and take it from there.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:30:23
Councillor Tristan Wilkinson - 1:30:25
Come back with another question. So just come back. So Ross Savage, our MP and I
are actually meeting Thames Water on the 17th to talk about exactly this so if
there's any progress and God knows who there might be but you know all we can do is
just keep laying out the case for investment and trying to get it slightly
up there, a list of priorities. Yeah I mean it's tricky because on one hand the
Officer - 1:30:47
government wants new housing but on the other hand you've got all sorts of
infrastructure issues, it's a difficult balance so yeah.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:31:01
Any further questions? Thank you. Well I wasn't going to talk about Thames
Councillor Juliet Layton - 1:31:05
water because I think we all know and it's we're all deeply concerned but I
just will say something I had a meeting today with them to Jeffrey Clifton Brown
and I pressed him to be pressing Thames water as he has been doing in the past
so with two MPs hopefully they will listen or whatever you know Thames water
ends up by being but what I'd like to ask the question here is we've got
which I read online the energy and sustainability statement from the applicant.
And we've got air source heat pumps, which I wouldn't expect anything less for every house that was being built.
They've mentioned passive housing in terms of the self -builds.
What I'm very concerned about is air source heat pumps take a lot of electricity and electricity is expensive.
They're using grey -blue artificial slate which is fairly
It would accommodate without too much glare, solar panels, but they're also
we've got a mixture of the slate and artificial. So there's very strong
likelihood of people who can afford it in some of those bigger houses or
whatever, to actually say, oh, I need to have solar panels now.
And I haven't seen any reference to solar panels in this document.
And I think we should really be building these,
and they should be not just tagged on to the outside of a roof.
We're doing a new build for a new future,
and they're priding themselves on the ecological
and the work of these buildings.
I'm guessing also, I can't see this,
I presume the air source heat pumps will be providing underfloor heating
which maximises the interior spaces for ground floor at least.
And they're also putting on EV charges.
So why have we not had any conversation about solar panels?
Officer - 1:33:24
Because the applicants adopting other measures,
going down the fabric first approach and additional insulation and thermal various measures and
things like that which can offset some of that. You don't therefore need to add the
solar panels on. There's a whole range of different measures you can incorporate without
necessarily introducing solar panels. We did discuss this at the time of the previous application
because some stone tiles were proposed and we thought if you put solar panels on stone
tiles it's going to look a bit awkward. So that's why they've gone down, the applicants
has gone down the route of the more greyish roof tile, because that does then, if solar
panels are added at a later date, they are going to be less obtrusive.
But yes, I mean, we're satisfied that other measures that have been proposed by the applicant
through the Fabric First approach and thermal efficiencies and things like that are going
to assist that in terms of the energy efficiency.
So that's why we're satisfied with what has been proposed is acceptable in this instance
without the need to enforce the solar panels into the development, especially if we can
avoid putting them in and there's other ways of doing it, then it's probably better not
to.
But I think the issue with the grey roof does actually mean that solar panels could be introduced
if householders wanted to without them being too stark in visual terms.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 1:34:39
Can I just come asking it?
but we've got a mix of the artificial grey slate and the artificial stone.
So, you know, sticking solar on artificial stone is going to look clunky.
They don't look good anyway when you put them on afterwards.
They're much better built in.
But the artificial stone will certainly look not great.
And that often happens in developments.
We think we've got a development and everybody then wants to start doing, you know,
piddly development rights and things on it.
And whatever the architect has worked really hard to make us something that looks great,
but we could be now saying well actually maybe we should be putting those on.
I think we just have to look at the application as it stands on its own.
I think the majority of roofing materials is going to be a grey colour.
Officer - 1:35:32
The stone tiles are limited in number.
most of the south -facing properties where solar panels would generally work
more efficient are of the grayer material so that's why that's been done
so it has been taken into account but at the end that we have to look at the
overall package and in this instance we think that's that's acceptable
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:35:57
Councillor David Fowles - 1:36:00
Councillor Fowles. Can I just turn to the subject of car parking the objective is
concerned, one of the objectives was concerned about the number of vehicle
spaces and I know from my own experience of campaigning that some of the sites
in Sarens system like Corinium Gate and New Mills when they were granted consent
cars have got bigger and there are more of them so could I just be reassured
that on this site that I'm just thinking of the roads themselves can you actually
park on the roads, there's sufficient room for people to pass by if their cars parked
outside dwellings, they're thinking of visitors and so on. Are you happy, I assume you are,
that there is sufficient car parking there, particularly for visitors to the site? Because
obviously it's at the northern end of the town and I imagine that a lot of people are
going to be using their cars to access facilities and so on.
Officer - 1:36:56
Yeah, my calculation is about 225 parking spaces of one form or another within the development.
The roads have all been subject to sweat path analysis showing that the rest of the vehicles
can turn corners and get past cars and things if they are parked on the highway.
So in the combination of the allocated spaces of over 200 and on -site parking there is enough
Any further questions?
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:37:28
Can I just ask something about the sewerage? I think I vaguely mentioned this to you before.
Page 195, FNP 5 .4. I don't know whether this applies because we're only looking at the condition on delaying occupancy of the last 11 houses because of the permission for sewerage.
But so the condition about occupancy
allows for physical connexion of the new homes
to sewage treatment can be delayed until enough homes are
occupied to achieve sufficient flow, et cetera, et cetera.
But while that's going on and getting the homes connected,
they can use tankering.
I just was listening to an article on the radio from somebody who'd experienced
tankering and it was unbelievably unpleasant she said I'm having a sewage
lorry come up to your door and empty the tank every single day any time day or
night really virtually. I'm not sure that's something the developer would be
in their marketing material so I think that would be something that is unlikely
to be something the developer would want to pursue. I think in this instance that
Yeah, I mean, the fact is 87, there's permission for 87 dwellings that can be occupied without
Officer - 1:38:54
the need to provide connexion details or infrastructure upgrades to terms of water.
So the extra 11, which is more than the established fallback position, would need to be in agreement,
any connexion would need to be in agreement with terms of water and with them satisfied
that the infrastructure capacity is there for those 11 extra dwellings so
that's what we've all accepted. So we're not likely to say oh you can use
tankers until the sewage is sorted out? I don't know how that would work from a
building control occupancy point of view or sales point of view for the developer
if he was trying to sell a house and saying it's got no connexion to it.
It wouldn't be very saleable. It's just it was mentioned as an option and it
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:39:40
didn't seem a very attractive option to me. That is the guidance within the
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:39:49
neighbour plan policy rather than the proposal in front of us. So it's something the neighbour plan
policy suggests but not necessarily something that the developers suggest. Thank you sorry I've
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:39:55
gone off on a tangent that's very naughty of me thank you.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:40:00
Councillor Coleman did you want to say something? Just to finish your tangent
chair I am convinced that I have a memory of seeing sewage tankering in
in Fairford in years gone by, probably on the east of the town with developments that
came in when we last didn't have a five -year housing land supply.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:40:17
Thank you. Sorry, I've distracted us slightly from the case. Mass is in hand. As such, all
the questions. In that case, we move on to our comments, debate, whatever you like to
call it.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:40:34
Firstly, I welcome the agent or the developers comments about the landscaping.
The more landscaping we can get around new developments the better, particularly at the
northern end as you come into Fairfield.
I think it will enhance the approach dramatically, so the more trees the better, more landscaping.
It looks like the site's got some lovely landscaping around it, so that's great.
I really do find it hard to understand the fact that we haven't had a response from the
county council on the school.
And although they're not allowed to comment, I'm assuming that the town council who have
got their finger on the pulse are comfortable that the impact on the school and the doctor's
surgery is manageable. Is that a shrug? Because I think it's a real concern. When I hear what
the ward member for the South Fairford and Lechner says about the 120 houses potentially
could come before us, I think that's going to put real pressure. And yes, I know that
we consult with them and they sometimes come back, I just think it's potentially an issue
looking at this we have no under appreciation of whether or not they're
going to invest in the school because it does need more investment and more
classrooms that's all it's a comment that's the only comment on a mate as for
Thames water it's great to hear from council Layton that we've got meetings
with both MPs I'm very involved in a scheme in by Brie that involves Thames
water where they're putting a new main into Thames walk into the middle of
I can't think of a place you wouldn't want to put a new main into given what's going
on in Bibery with tourism.
But anyway, that's going ahead and at our meeting liaison meeting with Thames Water
I said, can you guarantee that this project is going to go ahead because you currently
owe £18 billion and what guarantee do you have?
And although it was quite funny at the time, the liaison officer said that's why we want
to do this scheme quickly because the money might not be there but it is actually earmarked
and protected. So in our dialogue with Thames Water at whatever level it is, I think the
sooner we can get some formal commitment from Thames Water, because they are in a real mess
financially and I'd hate for us to go ahead with this scheme and then the whole Thames
Water gets unbundled, gets bought by the government and this gets put back into the long grass.
and I know Clifton Brown is very... Sir Geoffrey, sorry, beg his pardon.
Very actually, I think we've really got to press our two MPs to hold Thames Water to
account. Thank you, Chairman.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:43:25
Thank you very much. I think that's another potential tangent that we could rabbit hole
up perhaps that we could go down the financial state of Thames Water, but thank you for raising
that. So we'll move on to Councillor Wilkinson.
Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to draw contrast with this application and the previous one
Councillor Tristan Wilkinson - 1:43:42
and congratulate Carla Holmes and Fairford Town Council and the agent for cooperation
and a bit of a can -do attitude. I think that if we had more schemes of this nature with
a developer who was prepared to listen to the local community and not blame them for
not getting what they want, we might make a bit more progress.
And I've actually, I'm not the ward member for this,
but Fairford House Council have kept me informed at every step.
I feel really well briefed on this one that's led me to be able to make a much more informed decision.
So anybody watching or listening, I'd encourage you to take a similar approach
because it's probably going to get you a little bit further than coming in here
and blaming us for not getting what you want.
Thank you.
Councillor Conlon.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:44:37
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:44:39
I just thought by sharing emphatically that positive view of Fairford Town Council's
neighbourhood development plan.
They didn't have an easy time getting it through the first time, but they were proved
to be right in some areas where they suggested that housing should go there, not there.
It's now proving its worth.
I wanted to respond on this just in passing on the issue of schools first of all.
I don't know if everybody has noticed probably they have that there is quite a significant and
now quite long -running decline in the birth rate in this country and this has led to in the city
particularly in South London for secondary schools I think it is closing certainly for
primary schools closing very quickly because for lack of numbers and this
isn't too hard to understand because we've had 15 years of effectively no
income growth for most families and so one reason people aren't having more
children than they are is that there's been a cost of living crisis for a long
time. Another reason may be a cultural change a little bit more focus on the
the individual and the adults than on the question of whether
children are a priority.
But what I would say is that there are countries elsewhere in
the world where this is even more emphasised,
I think particularly South Korea,
and there are something like only six countries left now that
have a replacement birth rate, which are all in Africa,
I suspect.
So one thing that will slow down development eventually is maybe
leaving 20 houses is when there aren't enough people to fill them.
And I suppose if we follow one of our recent politicians' suggestions that we should try
and have a country in which more people leave than come, then we'll be back to the 1970s
where it was a place you wanted to leave because Britain was so rubbish in those days.
So for a while there were more people leaving than coming.
I prefer to live in a country where people want to come to rather than leave.
So I think the balance of all that is to say that at the moment there is no need to worry
about whether there will be room in schools.
Even in Syrinsester with its huge new developments,
there is room in every school except PALS,
and everybody knows that PALS is a very special school
at the primary level.
And also I do usually trust the planners
in the education department.
Sorry that was so long winded,
but I do think we need to be reassured
that some people are doing the numbers correctly.
And when we need to get money for schools,
we'll get money for schools.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:47:14
Thank you for that vote of confidence in our County Council really.
Sorry, the next one is Councillor Fann.
Yes, thank you very much.
Councillor Michael Vann - 1:47:28
As well as being ward council in Fairford North and the Governor of the Primary School in Fairford,
the viability of the Primary School is not in question, doubt whatsoever.
However, what is the case is that previously proposed enlargement is not happening.
Rich confirms specifically within the COTS world what's just been said about declining
birth rate.
That's all.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:47:57
That's helpful to know that.
Councillor Caul.
Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:48:03
Thank you.
the collaboration with the Council.
But I mean, obviously this has drawn quite a lot
of local attention system observations.
100 houses is significant, but I mean, weighing up,
I think we must recognise the clear strengths
in this kind of development.
It's offering a mix of smaller units and affordable housing.
And it seems that the local plan,
the local community have accepted this is taking place
in the right place within Fairford,
having dismissed those two previous in lieu of two other sites as that was my
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:48:43
observations from from this. Thank you. Councillor Layton. Thank you. Slight
Councillor Juliet Layton - 1:48:47
repetition here I apologise but I I also want to commend the town council for
their neighbourhood plan because this it was perfect in that they are actually
putting forward sites and this is and the collaboration we've talked about so
I'm very pleased about that I'm very pleased because very often in planning
committees in the past I haven't I don't sit on it very often anymore but in the
past it would be the you know the town of the parish would saying you've not
made any reference at all to our neighbourhood development plan so it's
it's really good to have this as our central core here with this and and the
collaboration between the developer and the town and us.
As far as Thames Water goes and the sewage,
that is a concern, but if we don't do it because of that,
we won't be having any applications.
We'll be refusing everything because I can't think
of anywhere in the district that we've got,
you feel comfortable, you know, sitting back and relaxing
and using the Thames Water facilities
is always a worry. I've had tankering in my village from a new development, even before
the development was open actually, which was really interesting. But there were issues,
we've got problems all over the district. So I think we have to kind of go on a wing
and a prayer and cross our, I was going to say legs, but I think I'll go with fingers.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Yes, I think the officer's report shows how useful it is
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:50:30
to have an excellent neighbourhood plan in place.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Fowles.
The comments we made about the birth rate,
Councillor David Fowles - 1:50:39
and I was very privileged to represent you, Chairman,
at the Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee last,
in July, where we looked at the birth rate.
And yes, it is going down, and the recent forecast was it's gone down from about 6 ,000
births in the next 10 years to about 5 ,500, but it's still a very significant, I mean,
delighted to know that there are still babies being born in the Cotswolds.
I'd like to endorse what's been said by Councillors Layton and Wilkinson.
People were talking earlier in the previous application about how nice it was to live
up in Chipping Camden and to run there.
Although I don't run, I'm privileged to live in the East and Fairford is my local town.
And it's very beautiful and it's great to see this development.
And I think we've got, in the East we're very lucky that we've got not only Fairford's development
plan, we've also got Lechlade's and we've used that on previous occasions.
So this is exactly the kind of scheme that Martin was talking about on the previous application
where it's thought through in the right place and actually probably enhancing the landscape
in some ways.
and I would like to propose that we support the officer's recommendation. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you very much.
Can I?
Councillor Judd?
Yeah.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:51:55
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:52:03
Thank you, Chair. I was just about to ask the planning for the committee to be a little bit more succinct and get on with it.
I second Councillor Fowl's recommendation to permit with the officer,
but I would also say that I think Carla Holmes, their approach to this development, working
so carefully with a very, very, very thorough, we've come across one another before, a very
thorough council, local council, but also with the officers in this district council,
and look what a difference it makes at this committee meeting. This is very rare. Watch
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:52:43
Thank you. Councillor Colman, do you have a succinct comment?
I can't third this so I'll be quiet.
Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:52:47
Are you seconding the proposal, Councillor Chad?
Okay. Councillor Colman.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:52:55
Can we just have a double cheque, Chair, on which...
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:52:58
Is it just one of the conditions that's been crossed out?
Or are there any others?
Are there any changes to the opposite report?
Officer - 1:53:12
No, sorry, the conditions in the report, the 87 unit condition remains, so that stays.
We'll need to amend the surface water drainage ones to take into account the comments from
the lead local flood authority and the applicant has made a couple of suggestions regarding
changes to the construction management plan and another condition, the access, site access
condition in terms of timeframes.
So we just just want to be able to have authority just to tweet those where necessary
It won't affect the fundamentals agreed. It just changes them slightly and also I think discussion was about adding some extra trees along to the north
So if the applicant's willing to provide some extra trees in the north, that's always welcome
So if we can have delegated authority to deal with those matters, that would be useful. Thank you
Sorry, I'm just trying to understand whether condition 22 it went out but it's back in now. Is that right?
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:54:03
Officer - 1:54:06
Yeah, Thames Water changed their view and it was taken out and then it came back so now it's come back in again.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:54:12
So we're voting to accept the officer's recommendation about including those items that Mr Perks has just put before us to be allowed to be delegated.
Is everybody clear on that or do you want further clarification?
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:54:33
In that case we will proceed to the vote which is proposed by Councillor Fowles and seconded
by Councillor Judd to accept the office's recommendation to permit this application
which is a full application.
Chair. Sorry. Nick Bridges went out of the room so he can't vote. Oh Nick. Nick, Councillor
Bridges you were out of the room? Yes. Can you change that to abstain? Great. Okay it
doesn't make any difference, you'll be pleased to know.
That's passed by eight in favour and one abstention.
So that application is allowed.
Okay, so we're now been sitting for two hours.
Would anyone like to have a comfort break?
Yes.
So I will allow a comfort break for 10 minutes exactly.
So please be back here at five plus four.

10 25/01717/FUL - Land West of Hatherop Road

.

11 25/01970/PLP - Land At Ethans Orchard

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:56:37
I'll start all over again because I haven't got my microphone on.
The application is for permission in principle for the erection of one's self -built dwelling
for land at Eton's Orchard, Middle Chetworth.
The case officer is Amy Hill.
The award member is Councillor Paul Hodgkinson
and the recommendation is to permit subject to agreement
of appropriate assessment by Natural England.
Can I ask Amy to present the application?
Thank you, Chair.
You have had late pages.
Those included a support comment and an objection
Officer - 1:57:14
but essentially queried comments in the support one.
So you have late pages as an update.
There should be, it's just summarised,
there was a comment of support submitted
and also an objection comment that queried some of the points
in that support.
We've also had the response back from Natural England
that accepted the appropriate assessment.
So the recommendation is now just to permit rather
than permit subject to.
We, after the late pages were done,
We also received a follow -up comment from the parish council.
This raised issues with regarding INF3, which looks at transportation, sustainable transport.
Part of this was raising concerns over the lack of facilities within Chedworth and the
usability of the bus routes.
They also noted recently constructed dwellings in and around Chedworth and the housing needs
survey having minimal need. They also mentioned concerns raised regarding
reference to the site being outside the village envelope and just to address
some of those points is that Chedworth is considered to be and has been considered
to be a non -principal settlement for a while and that includes post -COVID when a few
of the things in Chedworth have closed. We had an appeal decision I think 2022
which sort of referred to Chedworth being a non -principal settlement.
could be a non principal settlement. In regards to the envelope, the conservation area isn't the
envelope of the village and when we had our five -year land supply and DS3 we were being quite
strict on where our boundaries of our villages were, especially with something like Chadworth
where it's obviously a very drawn -out linear village so you don't want to say the fields to either side
of it are in the village. That doesn't mean on a practical basis of actually accessing services
It is not as close, it has an entrance point for this site right alongside another.
It is outside of Chetworth for the purpose of DS3 but in practicality terms, yes, it
is seen adjacent to Chetworth.
If I start going through my slides, because I don't think you have had a planning and
principal application beforehand, I have started off by just going through what the committee
can consider today.
So, planning and principles are like an out by a planning commission light.
So it comes in two stages, this being the first stage of the principle and then the
second stage for technical details.
So at this point you are only able to consider the location of development, the land use
and the amount of development.
So when I'm saying location of development, we're sort of where the site is and its context.
So you are considering whether a dwelling house could be accepted in terms of the landscape
and conservation area and such, but you're not considering...
Sorry, we'll stop at that point.
So the location of that, land use and the amount is just,
in this case, for a single dwelling house.
So what I'd like you to keep in mind in terms of when you're
asking me questions and such, your thought in the back of your
mind has to be, is it possible for a dwelling house to be
accepted on this site?
Not, I think this particular one would be okay,
but is it possible?
If, when we get to a technical detail stage,
that's when you start to look at the design appearance of the proposal, its layout and scale.
I put in about the national landscape conservation area and setting of listed buildings there
in the context of the design and appearance, layout and scale.
So you can still consider the cultural national landscape and such at this point,
but you're considering only a principle at this point, rather than any specific design, layout or scale.
All of it is hopefully a little less contentious
apart this but things like design, access, biodiversity,
biodiversity net gain, residential amenity and sill
are primarily dealt with at the latter stage for this application.
If you've been building on the middle of an ancient woodland,
then obviously it would be material at this stage.
But for this site, those matters would be dealt with
at the technical detail stage.
So to summarise, you're considering the site suitability
for one dwelling house, not the details of that house. For planning and
principles you can't attach any conditions so just bear
that in mind. You can make me aware of them and it would be something you might
be able to consider at the future stage because you can condition them at the
technical detail stage but essentially you can't make a remedition to permit
subject to at this point. So on to our actual site. So we're in the village of
So you're within the national landscape and we are in the conservation area there.
There's two parts to this.
There's the area outlined in red, which is the site, and an area outlined in blue,
which is other land within the ownership of the applicant, which will be relevant later in discussions.
You can also see an orange list of buildings that are nearby, and the red lines are the public rights of way.
Most notably for the site, there's one running along the eastern boundary and into the field to the north,
and the north goes down into the valley. You might also be able to tell from this and hopefully from
the aerial photograph next that to the south is where along that road you have most development
to the south of it so up on the bank and mostly along the north it's a lot more open.
So you can see there with the various fields which are our general context for you it's
It's an Acomholt settlement.
To zoom in slightly on our site.
So this is we've got a there's a garage building on the site
or an out building and that's what you can also not on the
site in the paddock.
There is a garage building.
I will try to be consistent.
I refer to the area to the left as the site and the area in
blue and the red as the paddock, but my apologies if I end up
saying the wrong one.
If you want clarity, please just confirm or just advise me.
But the paddock as a whole are the two areas within the applicant's ownership.
And so the right -of -way runs the right of the paddock, not the site, as I think I said earlier.
And so in the properties that you can see sort of the south,
just to note, are mostly post -war dwellings and you've got some more historic ones to the left,
or sorry, to the west of the site.
Just to give you a little bit of a context.
So you can't necessarily see because I've drawn red lines over it,
but you the paddock is primarily open.
You've got the one building but otherwise it's mostly grass.
What you can't see so much because I've covered up with red line
is that there is a hedge row going around most of the site
or sort of combination of hedge row and trees.
So what we'll see here or further with our later ones are the various
the wall to the front of the property and also the wall to the front of the site
and the hedgerow. So your image here you're looking at is that existing
building so off the site but within the land ownership and the public right of
way. Right to the right you can also see some of the post wall dwellings on the
left hand side of your screen. So the building in question and dry stone wall
and also you can see out from there some of the views available in the
distance and the same when you're looking at the access.
And you can also seeing the,
well that particularly shows the hedgerow
that currently borders the front of the site
and the same will be on and sort of looking up
towards the west in Chadworth and then just turning around
and looking back out of the village to the east.
I now went down the public right away.
It's just got trees on either side of it
so you can't see much, but when you're coming out,
you can see that the north of the site has its sort of tree and shrubs
and you sort of look out down into that valley, gone slightly further down and
looking back up so you've got sort of Jane's Cottage and other buildings just
alongside and then the hedge row or hedge tree area to the north forming
the boundary of the site and then looking out over the valley if those
weren't there just so you have a better idea of the overall context. Same thing
really you can see the arrow on the top of the screen. This was just to show a
little bit of evolution of the site over the last decade or so. This is pretty
much as is currently as it was in 2010 and then in 2009 and so you can see one
of the aspects we're considering is that the the hedgerow that's around the site
has really been planted and since that sort of 2009 -2010 but at this point is
pretty established around most of the site other than where the building is.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:06:10
Thank you. Thank you very much. Now can I ask some speakers to come forward for
the town council, Councillor Bella Amory, the objector, Dr Cyril Chern, represented
by Jenny Wigley, thank you, and the applicant George Charnick.
So just to remind you once again, you've got three minutes each to speak and my colleague
the town councillor.
Parish councillor, sorry.
Okay.
Mrs. Henry, thank you.
Do you know how to switch?
It's awesome.
Town/Parish Council - 2:07:12
Good afternoon.
Chedworth is a village with a unique and valued character.
It has far -reaching views, traditional cottages, and open green spaces.
The current application lies within both a conservation area and a national landscape.
The application has been opposed by the Parish Council, the Chedworth Society and many residents who have submitted detailed material objections.
As to the site in question, no new houses have been built on this side of the village road since the early 1970s.
This lack of development has helped preserve the open views and rural landscape that is so important to both residents and visitors.
But this application wants to develop this open space in the middle of Chedworth.
The site has been the subject of multiple refusals and appeal dismissals.
With the consistent conclusion, it is unsuitable for development due to the harm it would cause to the conservation area and protected national landscape.
This application is no exception.
Developing this parcel of open agricultural land would result in an urbanising impact on the village,
and it would visibly extend the built form in a way that undermines the existing settlement pattern.
The Conservation Office's suggestion, which also ignores parking and storage,
is that any building here should be very low, largely underground and screened,
which underlines how inappropriate a development on this site would be.
Their limited support also depends on tight conditions which can only be set at technical details stage.
Planning in principle is clearly the wrong application in this case.
Further, the Conservation Office's support is based on conditions tied to a separate site owned by the applicant, the paddock.
That site is not included in the current application and raises concerns about the legal enforceability of any condition.
If one site is sold, the controls are lost.
We also note the failure to properly consider sustainable transport.
Cheddworth now has no shop, no post office, no pub, and only one bus twice a week to its
higher ancestor.
All journeys rely on private cars or taxis, directly contradicting national sustainability
objectives.
Meanwhile, elsewhere in Cheddworth, 11 homes are already under construction and 9 are for
sale within the village, some for over a year and most for over a million. The last housing
needs survey showed minimal local demand, yet this evidence is not reflected in the
officer's report. Given the sensitivity of this location and the fact that there is no
clear public benefit from allowing this development, the tilted balance needs to be swung back
in favour of preserving the landscape for current and future generations. Please protect
our village and refuse this application. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Now can I ask Mrs Wigley to read the statement from Dr Chern.
Thank you. My name is Jenny Wigley Casey and I'm representing Dr Chern, a local resident.
Objector - 2:10:26
Good afternoon councillors. I'm afraid that your officers recommendation to approve is legally flawed and a grant of planning permission will be highly precarious if based on it.
Ethan's Orchard is one of the most sensitive locations.
It benefits from statutory protection from being within a conservation area, within the
setting of at least five listed buildings and within a national landscape.
Previous planning refusals and even your own officers current report all recognise the
harm that residential development in this location would cause to those protected features.
Notwithstanding this, your report recommends granting permission but on the basis that
that harm could be offset or mitigated by removal of a garage building from land outside
the application site. This is a completely flawed approach. Once permission in principle
is granted for the application site, that will necessarily establish the principle of
development on that site, and this will be irrespective of what could or could not be
done on other land. The Council will be entirely impotent to require anything on land outside
the application site. For this reason, the mitigation that is crucial to your officer's
recommendation is entirely undeliverable. To grant permission in these circumstances
will be to grant permission for a development which will necessarily, and it's accepted,
cause harm to highly valued natural and heritage assets without mitigation and contrary to
your statutory duties. To proceed in this way would amount to a legal error that would
make your decision unlawful. This is only but one of a number of errors in the recommendation
to approve. Contrary to the Listed Buildings Act, there has also been a failure to pay
special regard to the setting of at least five listed buildings, with no consideration
either in the application or the report of their significance or how they would be affected.
Further, even with the flawed reliance on the removal of the garage, there is no confidence
in your officer's report that the beauty of the national landscape can be
conserved and enhanced by a new dwelling in this location. Your officer is forced
to suggest a subterranean building and even then the report states merely that
and I quote, a suitably designed building property on the site may be
plausible while still conserving, enhancing the natural beauty of the
national landscape. Council is in the time available it is impossible for me
to list the many ways in which this approach conflicts
with your statutory duties, with local plan policies,
and with the decision -making structure in the MPPF.
Suffice to say that an approval will
be a flawed decision which will be
vulnerable to almost certain quashing by the courts.
And for those reasons, I urge you to refuse.
Thank you very much.
Perfect.
Thank you very much.
I practise.
and the diocese of Tonic as the applicant.
Follow that as they say.
Yes, yes, we've got three minutes.
Thank you. Madam Chairman, members of the committee,
thank you for this opportunity to put forward our proposal
Applicant/Agent - 2:13:30
and I speak in hope that you will be convinced
by our plan for our land.
My wife and I lived in Cheddworth for 33 years until 2022.
Our children went to the village school
and local secondary schools.
Our son lives in Coles and Aldwin
has a business that provides a service to Cotswolds tourism and local businesses. He
employs local people. Our daughter and family live in the Cotswolds and are teachers. We
have a long -standing connexion with Chetworth. Ethan's Orchard has Jane's Cottage to the
west, a modern house to the east, and sits opposite a cluster of 20th century houses
that are unlike neighbouring traditional cottages.
The land is not identified as an important gap or view.
It has two historic septic tanks and failing soakaways
that will be replaced with a low -profile treatment plant
to comply with Environment Agency rules.
Given the above context,
we think our proposal will improve the area through careful design
and proportionate scale that enhances the sustainable linear pattern of development,
improving both the surroundings and the site.
The vast majority of people in Shedworth have no objection to our plans,
and our many friends in Shedworth support us.
In 2019, officers advised that in principle a modest, unintrusive dwelling of clever design
blended into the landscape on the western side of the plot
might be acceptable as long as we remove the garage.
We do not want to build a million pound plus four bedroom house
as has happened in other parts of Chetworth.
We are committed to following officers advice in terms of design,
landscaping, removal of the garage and opening up the valley view
and restoring the natural contours and orchard.
Thus, we respectfully ask for permission in principle
so that we can begin the technical detail stage,
as mentioned by Amy,
during which officers will be consulted throughout.
So we are local people, committed to self -build,
using local builders.
We will work in partnership with officers
and believe the proposal will substantially enhance the land
and Middle Chedworth and that it will be a credit to those
who design, approve and build it.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Would you like to return to your seats?
Can I remind members of the public not to interrupt
in any way during the presentation?
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:16:26
Thank you very much Julia for reading out Councillor Hodgkinson's submission.
The ward member is unable to be here today so our officer will read out his report.
Julia Gibson, Officer - 2:16:41
The site lies within Chetworth Conservation Area and the Cotswold National Landscape,
both of which carry the highest level of protection under national and local policy.
The site also has a long and consistent planning history of refusals and an appeal dismissal
for similar proposals with concerns that remain valid today, in particular the unacceptable
harm to the character, openness and appearance of this sensitive rural gap.
It sits in the middle of the village of Chadworth.
Number one, heritage impact.
The site lies within the Chadworth Conservation Area,
a designated heritage asset of the highest significance
under the Planning, Listed Buildings and Conservation Act,
sorry, Conservation Areas Act 1990.
Section 72 in brackets one of the act requires the LPA
to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving
or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.
The National Planning Policy Framework requires great weight to be given
to the conservation of designated heritage assets,
regardless of the level of harm.
Any harm resulting from development, including harm to a setting
which must be clearly and convincingly justified.
Where harm is considered to be less than substantial,
it must still be weighed against any public benefits,
which in this case have not been demonstrated.
The Chetworth Conservation Area Statement identifies the importance
of green gaps between clusters of historic buildings in maintaining
views, openness and tranquilly.
This paddock, formerly an orchard, is one such gap.
It is a visually prominent sloping field that frames the rural
approach to the village from the east.
Introducing residential development here would neither preserve nor
enhance the conservation area, this harm would be permanent and irreversible.
Number two, landscape impact. Development cannot be assimilated without harm.
Introducing a dwelling, access, parking and other domestic items would
fundamentally alter the rural character. Previous refusals and appeals confirm
that such intrusion would interrupt key views and diminish openness. Granting
Planning in principle would sanction urbanisation to this sensitive site and set a damaging
precedent for further encroachment.
In summary, this proposal is unacceptable.
The site's location within a nationally protected landscape and a designated conservation area
makes it highly sensitive.
The introduction of residential development, even a single dwelling, would cause permanent
and disproportionate harm.
The application conflicts with the statutory duty to conserve and enhance both heritage and natural beauty,
and it fails to meet national and local policy requirements.
The character and openness of this rural gap are essential to the significance of the Chetworth conservation area
and the scenic quality of the Cotswold National Landscape.
These qualities cannot be replaced once lost.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:20:04
So can I just remind you, this could potentially be quite a long discussion, can I remind you
to be succinct and not repeat what other people have said, if you can avoid doing that.
Also, we are just looking at three principles, as the officer has said, Amy has said, location
of development, land use and amount of development.
So those are the things that are up for debate and discussion today.
I've asked our head of planning, Harrison, our head of planning to point out to members
if he feels that we're going off piste a bit.
I may be guilty of that myself, but so please do feel, and I shall also tell you if I think
you're straying from the task in hand.
So our first questioner is Councillor Fowles.
Councillor David Fowles - 2:20:58
I need to get my head around this.
The case officer who is very experienced said that we are just looking at design and principle.
We have history on this site which is all about refusal.
We have the parish council and an objector who is talking about and the ward member talking
very eloquently about the national landscape, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
We had an applicant who is talking about the promise of what he would build there, but
we are not in a position to comment on it because we are looking at design and principle.
To end we have got a conservation officer, very experienced, who says, something is possible
on this site given its sensitivity and the constraints it imposes.
Any solution would have to be imaginative of high architectural quality and potential
unorthodox for it to be justified on this site.
So it seems to me, is this a Trojan horse whereby we give permission to design something
in principle and then an application comes back?
Why not just wait until the application is put in?
If there is a promise of something exciting and different, why don't we just refuse this
application and wait for the finished full application?
That's my question.
Is this a Trojan horse?
Officer - 2:22:20
As far as we have to determine the application that's submitted to us, so whether or not
for a site that's sensitive we would prefer to have full plans or otherwise is somewhat
immaterial.
You can go down the planning and principle route in conservation areas and national landscapes,
so we have to consider that as is.
In terms of whether it's a, we are just considering whether there is a potential, so not the design
principle, but just if there is a potential residential development, they are justified
submit on that basis and we couldn't to me you cannot refuse an application
because you would have preferred it to come in in a different format. We have
enough information to consider the proposal albeit that we aren't going to
we don't know what it's actually going to look like but then that we're not
being asked and what it's going to look like we're just being asked about the
principle.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:23:07
Councillor Julia Judd - 2:23:11
Councillor Judd. Thank you chair. I'm equally confused because the first
application that we looked at today, we all came to the conclusion that it was a particularly
beautiful place.
And although it was for several properties, that doesn't mean to say that that place is
more beautiful because there were more properties.
The way I see it from these photographs, that place is even more beautiful than the first
place than the first item that we discussed and I cannot see why all those
policies that we all know off by heart they're inscribed on our hearts to
protect the Cotswolds through the MPPF through the local plan what is different
about that particular site that you even think about giving planning permission
on it. We obviously do have to consider the site within its context. Obviously the Planning
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:24:14
Advocate Officer's Report has a four or five page breakdown of the conservation area impacts,
plus then goes into the impacts of the national landscape. Obviously if members reach a different
view you're well within your rights to, but I think obviously members should have regard
because obviously we have detailed comments from the Conservation Officer setting out
the setting, the context and the potential impacts and equally within the Officer's Report.
I probably would refer to page 200 through to
there and national landscape context sensitivities and well how this
conclusion has been reached in this instance. Thank you, doesn't really answer
my question but thank you. Councillor Colle.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:24:57
Councillor Daryl Corps - 2:24:59
In this permission in principle, has a genuine local need for self -builds actually been demonstrated
by the applicant?
Because otherwise it could in effect become just a big open market property.
If they were relying on self -build as a justification, I would have gone into it more, you know,
Officer - 2:25:29
the self -build bit is a bit unnecessary within the description of work you're
considering a dwelling whether it was self build or otherwise isn't sort of I
would say particularly relevant in this case because it's not dependent upon
that so yeah I wouldn't worry too much about that part of the description of
work. It's probably worth just expanding. Obviously we get different requirements
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:25:49
we are required as an authority to deliver a certain number of self -build
dwellings that typically comes through there's a requirement for major housing
schemes deliver 5 % self -billed. In this case this isn't looking to address an
identified need it's relating to the BNG exemption so effectively were
permission to be granted a technical details consent you would then secure
that through a legal agreement but it's not relating to addressing an
identified need it is purely relating to that exemption. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Officer - 2:26:17
I don't think they've necessarily mentioned it's for the exemption but either way it's not sort of
addressing an identified need per se.
This is all a bit unknown, isn't it, for us?
Councillor Daryl Corps - 2:26:23
Councillor Daryl Corps - 2:26:25
Also, just regarding the site that joins a public footpath,
has, would you say, sufficient weight
been given to the impact on the public's visual amenity
in Shedworth?
My short answer would be yes, I do think so.
Officer - 2:26:42
I've been down that route and looked at it from both
the north of the site where the public right -of -way is.
So yes, it is definitely form part of the considerations when considering as an open space
Councillor Layton
Thank you a couple of questions
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:27:00
Councillor Juliet Layton - 2:27:03
We've heard about mention about listed buildings, can you?
tell us how close the listed buildings are or are they shown on the
location plan
So yeah sharing with you now
Officer - 2:27:20
The ones in orange, so the one I've mentioned in the report is the one just to the west of it.
So you have the house in between and then you have the listed building.
To me realistically that's the one I would say affects significance of or the setting of.
There are the ones around and you sort of could, obviously the legal opinion was that it is within the setting of these.
But in a general sense it's that one that I would have said was most the main concern.
and as within the report the obviously the importance of that site is more of
its contribution to the conservation area rather than its contribution to
the setting of listed buildings albeit noting they are sort of around the site
is historic village there are definitely listed buildings as per most of our
settlements. I just want a clarification because it had been mentioned about the
Councillor Juliet Layton - 2:28:10
listed building. The other thing could I ask and I can't remember which slides
were. We've talked about a hedge and we also talked about dry stone walling and the topography
I think when you had the dry stone wall one was quite clear. I just wondered if we could see those
or you could talk us through that a little bit about the hedging and so on.
What's probably easiest if I take us hopefully through to Google Street View because then we
Officer - 2:28:39
switch through the dates a bit more. So what you're seeing here is the 2009 image.
As you go along there essentially there's no hedging particularly established along any of
the frontage and you can also see as you're looking down that you can see the head the fence line
to the south, the west and to the south, to the north, sorry.
What you can't see because I haven't gone along the road is that that's also true
on the boundary with the public right of way.
Whereas we start going, I'm hoping I'm going in the right direction,
so yes that shows you along the boundary and you can start to see
what looks like to my eyes the planting of that hedgerow,
which then by the time we get to 2024,
you have what's quite a lot more of established hedgerow
forming the boundary with the public right away.
This area is the only area really without hedgerow boundary
so you've just got the stone wall there.
And then on the other side
where the actual site boundary is,
you have the dry stone wall with the hedge above
and it also extends around the site to the north
where it borders with the field it is effectively a hedgerow it's just a much
more unmanaged one with a lot more trees within it and sort of scrubby type of
planting. So my other question was actually what is the value of that hedge is that
Councillor Juliet Layton - 2:30:17
you know native species and and and supportive of wildlife etc or is it sort
something that's quite fast growing and blocking a view and it's... I guess my
answer is I haven't looked at what the species would be. I'm not... there are definitely
Officer - 2:30:36
ones within there that look like they are more native for certain areas. The
roadside planting is a little bit more... is less diverse. There is value within
most head rows so there is a value to it but inevitably they do limit views
across the valley from the site or from the road across the site.
Councillor Coleman.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:31:06
Thank you chair. There's some I think comments from the here we are it's 1035
the conservation officer who indicates that the site has houses to east and
and a rather unsympathetic row, mid 20th century houses on the higher ground to the south.
And therefore, in the next paragraph, a very carefully considered design then preserved,
that preserved I imagine that means, and so on over the page.
So the question is, I think, although everything must be done on its merits, do we have any
examples that in other villages or elsewhere in the Cotswold national
landscape and conservation areas and so on where this has been successfully done?
Off the top of my head I couldn't give you any particulars but obviously we we
have permitted in the past part one requiring paragraph 84 of the MPPF is to
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:32:10
a permit development that is of an exceptional design pushing
the bounds of architecture and things.
And I know for a fact we've committed some of those.
I can't point you to any in particular off
the top of my head.
I don't know if Justin can reflect on any,
sorry, not to put you on the spot, but don't worry if not,
but any in particular.
But we've certainly permitted developments
that we would or has been granted
based on its architectural quality
and how it responds to the landscape.
I think the point with this application is we
believe it is possible.
And therefore, from a permission of principle,
given our limited scope of what we may consider,
in principle, a dwelling on this plot could be delivered.
Whether or not it actually can comes down
to the detailed consent stage, but we believe it is possible.
So the follow -up question is that we
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:32:55
must have had a few permissions in principle over the years,
perhaps some of them determined under delegated powers,
for all I know.
How often do we find that following,
How often, if ever, do we find following a permission in principle being granted, do
we find ourselves having to refuse the subsequent details and do we find ourselves unable to
come to a satisfactory agreement with the applicant to ensure that the permission can
be completed?
I couldn't tell you the stats off the top of my head.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:33:29
I can think from cases I've dealt with, I can think of a couple where we've been able
to approve the technical details consent and I can think of one where I've refused two
technical details consent despite having approved permission and principle.
As I say, the permission and principle is basically looking at a red line on a map,
but that's the extent of what we're considering.
So there's no guarantee of a permission at the technical details consent stage.
I don't know if Justin or so flag that he might want to come in on back on the first
point.
Thank you.
Thank you, Justin.
Could you comment to our conservation officer?
Thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:33:57
I agree this is a very unfortunate site for something as black and white as a permission
in principle because it is a very sensitive site. I think we're all in
Officer - 2:34:06
complete agreement on that. I mean I think the key thing, could we possibly go
back to this Google Street View images that show the site from the
road looking from east, so where you see the garage in the
foreground. That is a perfect one. I think one of the concerns, and when I say
that, the whole orchard which includes the bit that is now the separate site
and the orchard bit. As you're approaching the village, giving the nature of the road, it is the
eastern part of the site that is the most visible in terms of approaching the settlement.
And the eastern part of the site is dominated by this garage, it's hard standing and quite a
large area of earthworks to create this flat platform which rather jar out the natural topography.
The view that we've taken all along is that this is the more sensitive part of the site. Historically
this was the open half. Interestingly the type map shows that in the opposite corner, in the
southwest corner, there were two structures and the old OS map show a single shed sized structure
in the far southwest corner. So I think that the view that we had is that anything that happens
here has to see the removal of all the harmful structures in this more prominent eastern part
of the site. So the removal of the garage, the removal of the hard standing and the restoration
of the natural topography and then the converting of the space into a paddock orchard. This is why
it was separated from the application site because we were determined that this half of the site
would not become domestic kertovich. It had to stay rural. I fully accept the points that have
been made about tying it together. I would defer to our planning officers and our lawyers on that
issue but from our perspective this is the heritage benefit that is fundamental
it's absolutely vital to anything that takes place and then the view that we
then took is is if we get this benefit can we get a development on the other
half of the site the level of harm of which has been lowered to the point that
it's outweighed by the benefit of restoring this more prominent eastern
part of the site. And that is that's the way in the past we gave advice that if
it were effectively using topography of the hillside and meadow grass roofs it's
something that from the road hopefully you would look straight over and you
wouldn't see. I think it is of note that we have had multiple applications and
pre -apps on this site and to date we have not received a design of sufficient
quality that we've been able to support. So it is very much something maybe
possible on this site. The design is almost as fundamental as the removal of this structure.
But unfortunately this is a permission in principle. But that is why we've looked at this.
It's not that the design is what justifies it, it's the removal of the harm on the eastern end
of the site that is the benefit. Everything else is about mitigating the harm to the level
that the harm is lower than the benefit. So it is very much an imbalance thing.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:37:20
One follow -up I hope. I'm extremely grateful to my honourable friend for that
very lucid explanation because it's helped me a lot. But what I am wondering
given the constraints of the site is you'll need one if not three cars to be
able to be accommodated on that property because that's how life is in villages
with people who can afford to do houses of this nature. And where on earth are
you going to put the cars given the constraints of the landscape and the
and the national and all the rest of it.
This, this...
Cars got to be parked underground at all times?
Officer - 2:37:53
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:37:55
I don't think we've gone quite that far.
Officer - 2:37:59
This is one of the issues that's never been resolved,
which is why none of the previous schemes have actually been supported.
It is, it is...
I mean, everything would have to be in the western half of the site,
but again, we have not to date received a scheme that we felt
answered all these issues successfully.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:38:19
Can we just not go on, we're straying aside, you know, to things which are
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:38:29
technical matters I would have said. Okay. I do accept the point. Just as you put me
off the point.
Can we stick to the matters in hand, okay? So, Councillor Fowles. Well, I had three
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:38:44
questions, one of which has been asked by Councillor Coleman because I wanted a better
understanding of where Justin was coming from, but I've now got that. Two questions. Question
one is given this is a design in principle, if we refuse it, does that mean that's it
over? Because if you just refuse building on this site in principle, therefore I assume
you can't come forward with an application for a house on this site. That's question
one. And question two is related to question one. If we approve it, can we condition the
type of thing that has to be put on there that builds in all the comments and concerns
expressed by the parish council and the guidelines that have been suggested by the conservation
officer?
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:39:35
I think the officer has already said we can't impose conditions. Is that correct?
If it is a design in principle, and we don't appear,
Councillor David Fowles - 2:39:42
as Councillor Coleman said, it seemed quite natural,
because I was going to ask the question,
what other examples have we got of where we have given approval
for design in principle,
because we don't know what is going to be built on that.
Obviously, you as officers don't have any examples of that.
So, in law, if we refuse this application,
does that mean nothing can be built on this site?
For the first instance they would be able to appeal the decision.
Officer - 2:40:10
In the first instance they could appeal the decision, so that's almost step one.
Even if we refused it, it doesn't prohibit them from submitting an additional application.
They might consider that they've come forward with a scheme that's so wonderful that they think they'll overturn it.
It doesn't stop them from coming in with any future applications.
Councillor David Fowles - 2:40:31
Building on that, please, because I'm very simple,
what is the point of this?
I don't quite understand.
Because if we're giving approval for a design in principle,
we still have to see the design,
and if we don't they can still come back with a design
because they can't go forward and build anything
until they actually come back to us with a design.
So this is like catch -22,
this is Joseph Heller all over again.
It is the nature of the planning and principle applications.
Unfortunately we didn't introduce them as everything they are.
Officer - 2:40:58
Councillor Wilkinson. Thank you. I'm not sure if I'm the only trained
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:41:09
Councillor Tristan Wilkinson - 2:41:11
architect in the room but maybe I think the reason we're all struggling is that
this scheme lives or dies on its architectural merit and there isn't any
to judge it on and so we're having to kind of imagine what may or may not come
before us in the future so I think that's a real problem and I think
Justin's comments were really balanced and really helped me a lot.
I think that picture tells a storey. One is that actually from a lot of the site,
there is no view from the road, the hedges, you know,
restricting that. So, you know,
we're talking about something that we would like that isn't actually there at
the moment.
Bringing yourself to a question here.
The question is about the split site. So I, I, I,
I guess there is a worry that granting approval in principle for one site that is dependent
on what happens on the other, that legal advice says there is no jurisdiction over it.
What are the protections that things that happen in the blue box that are dependent
on the red box actually come forward?
Officer - 2:42:28
Whilst we can't put conditions on at the planning principles, at the planning in principle stage, you can do so at the technical details stage.
So were it approved, I would be envisioning putting a gramping condition on to that side of the site, or possibly even a legal agreement to secure it, to ensure that the garage was removed and the land restored and sort of made to orchard or open.
And sorry, and I think that it sounds like this is a very technical kind of proposal,
Councillor Tristan Wilkinson - 2:42:55
which actually I think there's almost a kind of submission of faith to either object and
then go to appeal or whatever happens then or to approve and see actually whether whatever
comes before us addresses the concerns that have been so eloquently voiced in the last
45 minutes or so.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:43:28
Was that a statement rather than a question? Okay, thank you.
I think to David's point, what's the point? I get from the applicant's perspective, it's
about confidence, right? So if I'm about to spend several thousand pounds on detailed
Councillor Tristan Wilkinson - 2:43:40
architectural drawings and things like that I'd like to understand that I've got a fighting
chance that it's going to get approved and this is a really good opportunity to understand
the sentiment of the room. I get that. But until we see some decent drawings then it's
all wishful thinking isn't it? Thank you. Councillor Chad.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:44:03
Councillor Julia Judd - 2:44:07
Thank you Chair. Justin you know I'm going to ask you a difficult question. But I know
I just wonder, this is such a gamble for you, because no application can be approved on
this site. If we approve this planning in principle, on the location that Amy eloquently
described to us, you have in your mind a certain type of design that might be acceptable, but
But what you really want is to get rid of that garage.
Is that garage really as bad as that that you decided to?
I mean, is the garage, how big a part of this is the garage?
Getting rid of the garage is, that is the public benefit.
Officer - 2:45:00
Without that, then any development will have harm.
The question is the extent of the harm.
It's not just the garage.
There is a substantial area of hard standing around the garage.
And when you see it from the field,
there is quite a very artificial engineered amount of topography
that's been altered to create it.
So it's very artificial and it's much more visually prominent.
So absolutely that is fundamental.
And without that, I think it falls.
I mean, the permission in principle is awkward,
because so far all my comments have been, might be possible.
And unfortunately, we're now with permission in principle.
All I can do is often say yea or nay.
And considering what I've said before,
I can't say nay without being inconsistent.
Councillor Call.
Very quick question.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:45:50
A lot of debate about this planning application
Councillor Daryl Corps - 2:45:53
in principle.
We were minded to support the officer's recommendation to commit or if we vote to refuse it and the
applicant goes to appeal and puts an application in again, would that application automatically
come through to a committee on either scenario?
No it wouldn't, it would be subject to the normal process. The ward member would obviously
have the right to fall onto the ward member to call in.
It wouldn't automatically come back.
Councillor Wilkinson did you want to come back for something?
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:46:34
I just, given the struggles in the room, is it possible to defer this decision and have
Councillor Tristan Wilkinson - 2:46:39
a site visit? Because I suspect many of us would benefit from actually visiting it and
seeing for ourselves.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:46:51
Okay I think that comes under comments so we'll see, Councillor Layton has got a
question and then we'll move on to debate. I'm going to ask a question that
Councillor Juliet Layton - 2:47:00
would probably if I was in your shoes I'll be banging my head on the desk. The
garage is clearly quite old and it's not in our
planning application to be asking about it but I'm going to. Did it ever have
planning permission for all that work? Yes. So there was a 2005 application for
Officer - 2:47:23
the replacement garage that will, I can't remember the terminology with replacement garage,
but there was a previous structure that was in a poor state of repair and they
replaced it with that building.
Okay does that conclude the questions? Are you moving on to a comment? Okay, far
way.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:47:41
If the applicant is looking for guidance,
Councillor David Fowles - 2:47:46
it's almost like a form of pre -app,
this application, it seems to me,
and I think he has got guidance, okay?
So in a situation where we take a vote,
if we all abstain,
is that what then happens to the application?
I mean, this is like a 99 call.
If we all abstain, it's neither determined, is it?
I just wanted to find out.
If we all abstain, what happens to the application?
There we are.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:48:18
It would be down to me.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:48:25
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:48:26
I'm not going to abstain.
There we are.
Is that the last question?
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:48:32
If so, we'll move on to comments.
We've had a proposal put forward for a site inspection briefing.
So further comments?
Councillor David Fowles - 2:48:43
My comment is I would support the proposal for a site visit.
So I would like to second that.
But if we don't have a site visit,
I will abstain because I don't see the point
of this application.
Because on the basis that if we approve it,
it's still got to come back with a finished design.
And if we don't approve it, it can still come back.
So either we go for a site visit or I'm going to abstain.
Okay, so you're seconding...
I'm seconding the site visit.
Okay.
Any other comments?
For the SIB, we just need, effectively, reasoning.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:49:18
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:49:21
The constitution requires that it must be justified on planning grounds with strict criteria.
The criteria as follows.
The character appearance of the development itself is a fundamental planning consideration.
A judgement is required on visual impact.
or the setting and surroundings are fundamental to the determination of the conditions being considered.
So can you just let me know just so we've covered off those points.
I'll give it a stab.
I think much was made about the listed buildings.
Councillor Tristan Wilkinson - 2:49:42
I think from the site map it's really difficult to kind of understand sight lines and things like that.
So I think you kind of, you need to be there to understand the context.
The context is really important.
context for me is as much about feeling of a place as it is about the drawings
from a bird's -eye view so that would be you know a big consideration for me.
So we're looking at the last one that you said the setting.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:50:09
Add to that, Chairman, as the seconder, that given the sensitivity of this site and the
Councillor David Fowles - 2:50:15
importance of open space in the the visual appearance of Chedworth as
articulated by the parish council. I think the only way we can judge this site is to go to a site visit.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:50:32
Thank you. Does anyone want to make any further comments before we vote on the site inspection briefing? Councillor Judd.
Slightly another one for Justin, but much easier this time.
Councillor Julia Judd - 2:50:43
Well, it's just a comment about the hedge. Is that part of the demolition job that you have in mind?
Officer - 2:50:54
I have not mentioned the hedge as such, but the hedge is an ephemeral feature and I don't
think the hedge should really carry any weight in the consideration of the impact of any
development, because hedges come and go.
Any further comments? If not, we will proceed to a vote on deferring this application in
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:51:13
order to go on a site inspection briefing. Is that the correct way of phrasing it?
We have before us a suggestion that we have a site inspection briefing in which case we
would defer the decision until after the site inspection briefing. That suggestion is put
forward by Councillor Wilkinson and seconded by Councillor Fowle. Is there anything further
you would like to say about that?
No, no, that's all fine. We've got the reasons for the SIB which are in accordance, so I'm happy with that. So no, please continue.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:51:47
So we'll go to a vote on whether we should go on a site.
Is it to be a panel briefing or a full briefing?
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:51:54
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:51:58
All member briefing? All member visit rather?
Will both offices, the case officer and the conservation officer be there?
Yes, they are obviously looking for a nice morning out in Chetwyth.
The 1st of October.
Will it be the 1st of October?
Yes, the 1st of October.
Put that in your diaries everyone.
Okay, well we've got to vote on it first of all.
So let's vote on whether to defer this application for a site inspection briefing.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:52:42
There is unanimous approval for a site inspection briefing, so that application is deferred
to allow for that.
Moving on.
The next item on the agenda is site inspection briefing. Members, if required, but in fact
there is a recommendation that it should be all of us. Please put that in your diary and
you will all be sent details in due course. Is there a requirement for a licencing subcommittee

12 Sites Inspection Briefing

13 Licensing Sub-Committee

on the 25th? I think it was cancelled, wasn't it? I think that brings us to the end of the
Sorry, Councillor Pals.
Chairman, I should have asked this at the beginning, but I've said this before.
Councillor David Fowles - 2:53:46
When you show a site plan or location plan and the case officer says and the area is
outlined in red, if you are red -green colourblind, you cannot see it.
Now, I happen to be probably the only member here who is red -green colourblind, but one
in four men have a colourblind deficiency.
So anyone looking at this from outside would not be able to see that site.
So is it beyond the wit of man to outline it in a colour that those of us that have a
site deficiency could see like yellow?
Because in the old days we used to have people with pointers who were showing us where it
was.
So I look at a green field and I can't see the site.
You may think that's a funny thing to say, but believe you me it's hell.
Could I make that request, please?
I'm sure there are other ways of outlining it.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:54:39
You could do it with asterisks or dotted line or something, as well as a different colour.
And whilst on my feet, I would just like to say this has been the best planning meeting
Councillor David Fowles - 2:54:49
I've been at for a long time, because it has some really interesting applications.
So thank you to the planning review panel for bringing them before us.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:54:59
So the site inspection briefing then is Wednesday 1st October, and our next planning committee
will be the 8th of October so will we be bringing this case application back to
that one? Well yeah all being well. Good okay the meeting is now closed you may
all go home.

There are currently no votes to display