Planning and Licensing Committee - Wednesday 8 October 2025, 2:00pm - Vote_events Tab

Planning and Licensing Committee
Wednesday, 8th October 2025 at 2:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Michael Vann
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Len Wilkins
Councillor Nick Bridges
Councillor Dilys Neill
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Officer
Officer
Officer
Officer
Officer
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill

1 Apologies

Share this agenda point

Julia Gibson, Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill

3 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

Councillor Dilys Neill

4 Minutes

Share this agenda point

Minutes , 10/09/2025 Planning and Licensing Committee

03. Approve minutes of the meeting held on 10 September 2025
Status: In progress
03. Approve minutes of the meeting held on 10 September 2025
Status: Ended

5 Chair's Announcements

Share this agenda point

6 Public questions

Share this agenda point

Public Speaker
Councillor Dilys Neill

7 Member questions

Share this agenda point

Schedule of Applications

Share this agenda point

Officer

8 25/01036/OUT - Land East Of Cotswold Business Village

Share this agenda point

Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Town/Parish Council
Councillor Dilys Neill
Town/Parish Council
Objector
Councillor Dilys Neill
Applicant/Agent
Councillor Dilys Neill
Ward Member
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Julia Judd
Officer
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Officer
Councillor David Fowles
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Nick Bridges
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Nick Bridges
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
08. 25/01036/OUT - Land East, Cotswold Business Village - Refuse
Status: In progress
Councillor Michael Vann
08. 25/01036/OUT - Land East, Cotswold Business Village - Refuse
Status: Ended
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill

8 25/01036/OUT - Land East Of Cotswold Business Village

Share this agenda point

9 25/01970/PLP - Land At Ethans Orchard

Share this agenda point

Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Objector
Councillor Dilys Neill
Objector
Councillor Dilys Neill
Objector
Applicant/Agent
Councillor Dilys Neill
Ward Member
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Nick Bridges
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Michael Vann
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Officer
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Officer
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Officer
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor David Fowles
Officer
Councillor David Fowles
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Michael Vann
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Dilys Neill
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Dilys Neill
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Michael Vann
Officer
Councillor Michael Vann
Councillor Michael Vann
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
09. 25/01970/PLP - Land at Ethans Orchard - Refuse against Officer Recommendations
Status: In progress
09. 25/01970/PLP - Land at Ethans Orchard - Refuse against Officer Recommendations
Status: Ended
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Nick Bridges
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
10. 25/02584/TPO - Abbey Grounds - Permit
Status: In progress
Councillor David Fowles
10. 25/02584/TPO - Abbey Grounds - Permit
Status: Ended
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill

11 25/00002 - Tree Preservation Order - Mill Close, Blockley

Share this agenda point

Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
Ward Member
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Len Wilkins
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
11. 25/00002 - TPO, Mill Close Blockley - Confirm
Status: In progress
Councillor David Fowles
11. 25/00002 - TPO, Mill Close Blockley - Confirm
Status: Ended
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:00:00

Good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of the planning committee of Cotswold District

Council. I would like to welcome members who may be watching at home. If you are at home

you should see the name of the board member who is speaking come up on your screen so

you will know who is talking at any one point. We will be using our electronic voting system

to vote and you should be able to see in which way every member has cast their vote when

you are at home. If for any reason the electronic method fails, we will be voting by a show

of hands. Welcome to all those members of the public who have come here. It is very

good to see you here. Can I just remind you that you are not allowed to talk to members

of the committee or to interrupt proceedings in any way at all. Obviously the public speakers

are allowed to come forward and speak but other people are not. So can I ask everybody

present, officers, ward members and members of the public to make sure their phones are

switched off or on silent so it doesn't interrupt the proceedings. So we're pleased to have

some public speakers with us here today. You'll be called forward after the officer has done

their presentation and you will each have three minutes to speak. We'll be

timing you and we'll be telling you when your three minutes are up so please

arrange your speech or whatever you want to say so that the most important

items come first because we will be chopping you off at three minutes

although we will allow you to finish a sentence and then our our ward members

who here get five minutes to speak. So now I'd like to introduce the members of

the Planning Committee. As I said I'm Delis Neal and I'm the

Ward Member for Stow on the Wold. Thank you.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:02:05

Ian Watson, Vice Chair representing Teprytown Ward. Good afternoon I'm

Councillor David Fowles - 0:02:14

Councillor David Fowles I represent the Colne Valley Ward.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:02:18

Good afternoon, I'm Councillor Patrick Coleman representing the Stratton Ward in the town of Syrinsester.

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:02:30

Michael Van Fairfoot North Ward.

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:02:36

Julia Judd, Ermine Ward.

Ray Brattington, Four Acres Ward of Syrinsester.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:02:41

Councillor Len Wilkins - 0:02:45

Len Wilkins, Bawl Ward, but substituted for Beryl Crumbs.

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:02:51

Nick Bridges, a Baltimore Ward, Sire ancestor.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:02:56

Thank you very much. Now can I ask the officers to introduce themselves, please?

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:03:02

Harrison Burley, Head of Planning Services for Cross -Industry Council.

Officer - 0:03:07

Martin Turks principal planning officer

Officer - 0:03:11

Officer - 0:03:16

Mary Barnes legal advisor to this committee

Amy Hill senior planning officer

Officer - 0:03:22

Officer - 0:03:26

Justin Aton conservation and design

I'm Justin Hobbs, one of the tree officers.

Officer - 0:03:31

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:03:34

Is that everyone? I think so.

Thank you very much. Now can I ask if there are any apologies or substitutions please?

1 Apologies

Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:03:46

Yes, we have apologies from Councillor Tristan, Wilkinson, Councillor Daryl Korps, Councillor Andrew McLean,

and we have substitutes of Councillor Len Wilkins for Councillor Daryl Korps.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:00

Thank you very much. Are there any declarations of interest from members?

3 Declarations of Interest

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:07

No, that's great. Any officers who need to declare an interest?

4 Minutes

No, great. So we now go on to the minutes. The wrong minutes were circulated with the pack.

Has everyone had a site of the September minutes? We had the August minutes circulated by mistake.

because everyone had a site of the September minutes.

If so, are there any comments on the minutes?

Would anyone like to propose

that we accept the minutes as a record?

Thank you, Councillor Fowls.

Would anyone like to second that?

Councillor Conlon, thank you very much.

We'll go to the vote on the minutes then, thank you.

It should be nine.

Is anyone having a problem voting?

One more person.

I think you are away so you will be abstaining.

Those minutes are accepted.

Thank you very much.

So I don't have any announcements to make under the Chairman's announcements.

You'll be pleased to know.

So we now move on to public questions.

5 Chair's Announcements

Do we have a public question?

6 Public questions

Thank you very much.

Would you come forward and introduce yourself and then raise your question.

Thank you. Would you introduce yourself and then raise your question?

Nicholas R. Baffinot. I'm here regarding the use of Rencombe Airfields land for commercial

Public Speaker - 0:06:44

purposes. My questions are, when will you let us know when Rencombe Airfields response

to your peace September PCN will be available to the public? If the Airfields response is

found to be inadequate, when will CDC finally commence enforcement procedures? When the

When the 106 agreement was negotiated, the airfield agent assured CDC that there would be no commercial use, no circuit flying, and all aircraft would immediately fly away at 1 ,500 feet.

It's June 2024. You refuse an application to legalise their commercial purposes.

You can book on their website a commercial wing -walking flight.

These illegal flights have been going on since April, four days per week for most of the day,

with customers' circuit flying around the neighbourhood at 250 to 800 feet.

The noise is invasive and intolerable for the residents of North Cerny, Rencombe and Shedworth.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:07:41

Thank you very much, Mr Abathnot.

I know that you've been advised in advance of the meeting that we're not able to provide an oral answer at this meeting,

because the meeting is in the public domain

and enforcement investigations are confidential matters.

So members and the chair of the committee indeed

are not privy to all the details of the investigations,

but you will be provided with the written answer within two weeks.

I hope that will satisfy you.

Thank you very much for bringing that question,

which I know is of concern to other people in the area.

Thank you.

7 Member questions

We do have a member question which is printed in our agenda today.

It comes from Councillor Andrew McLean. Unfortunately at the very last minute he's been unable to attend

so we have decided the best thing to do would be to

defer that question until the next meeting in order to allow him to raise a supplementary question if he wants to.

Right, so we're now going to move on to the schedule of applications.

Schedule of Applications

The first question, the first item then, the first application is the outline

application for our 195 dwellings together with vehicle access from London

Road landscaping together with associated developments including

active travel measures along London Road at the land east of Cotswold Business

Village south of London Road, Moreton in Marsh Gloucestershire. The case officer is

Martin Perks and the ward member is Councillor Angus Jenkinson. So can I ask

Officer - 0:09:34

Mr. Perks to update us? Yes, thank you chair. Just to go through additional pages

which you should have had yesterday and hopefully a chance to look through those.

Just to confirm in terms of the updates, the applicants have confirmed that they look at

purchase units for biodiversity net gain, which is potentially an exceptional option.

However, this would require agreement through the Section 106 legal agreement.

So there's no proper mechanism in place to secure that delivery at the moment.

So that's why the refusal reason related to BNG has been altered slightly to take that

into account.

So if we do make a final recommendation, it's with that refusal reason on the additional

pages rather than the one on the officer report.

Further consultations, representations we received from Councillor Jenkinson.

There's the formal final response from GCC highways.

I've also attached a full copy of the environment agency's response as well to the application

because it includes quite a lot of technical information.

8 25/01036/OUT - Land East Of Cotswold Business Village

We have also received two further objections from local residents.

One just raises concerns about flooding and foul drainage infrastructure capacity.

Further objection which came in overnight just says site constrain future expansion

and growth potential of the employment village which is vital for the long -term economic

sustainability of Moreton and Marsh.

If Morton is to accommodate strategic growth, such decisions should be made through the

local plan process where employment and housing needs can be balanced appropriately.

So I'll give you a minute to look through the various pages.

Hopefully you've already had a chance to look at those.

But I'll go through the presentation once that's done.

Officer - 0:11:49

From those not familiar with Morten & Marsh, the site's agricultural land adjacent to the

about one and a half kilometres from the centre of the town on the southern side of the A44.

The fire service college training facilities are to the north of the site and employment

land to the west.

A sewage treatment works to the south of the site.

Aerial photograph of the site again showing the extent surrounding development.

Applicants provide an indicative layout showing how the number of houses could potentially

be fit into the site. They also showed a potential route of a relief road, access road, which

could provide turning for the busses if they enter the site and gives an indication of

the level of landscaping that could be included within the site as well.

Heading towards the town along the A44 in the east, the blue arrows, the extent of the

area as for the site shows the building under the blue arrow is the edge of the

existing industrial estate one of the buildings there the housing would come

forward about 350 metres further forward of that building so it gives an

indication that the proposed housing would be far more prominent when

approaching the time from the east than existing development and views from the

a44 again this site entrance is shown there in the gap in the vegetation with

the industrial estate or employment village beyond. View from the site entrance looking

westwards to the edge of the employment estate. That's the application site looking eastward.

At the moment it's just a large, relatively flat open field which extends relatively seamlessly

into the wider landscape. Views southwards towards the site from the A44. These were

in April so it gives you an indication of the extent of vegetation screening the site.

As part of the scheme the applicant's proposing highway works which would include introducing

pedestrian footways along the southern side of the A44. So the grass verge there is next

to the industrial estate and that would be new footway would be created there. New footway

would also extend along that. The cemetery is on the left and a pedestrian crossing would

be on the hard surface area there that would link to the northern side of the A44. This

I believe was submitted to members yesterday, just a briefing document provided by the applicant

setting out the benefits of the proposal. This just gives an indication of the

applicants eastern also the eastern boundary of the application site or the

eastern view of the application site showing the extent of housing that would

be developed and this shows again proposal with a bus stop as you enter

the site with the proposed housing. I've well skip through these briefly it's

just the highway works in case the larger details are in your schedule.

The yellow areas show the extent of new development, residential development taking place in the

town since about 2010. So again, it shows the growth of the town in that period, in

the current local plan period. The larger area to the north had over 700 houses. And

And again, this is in your schedule, but hopefully it's clear on the screen, but it shows a comparison

between 2006 and 2025 in terms of the growth of the town in that period in terms of residential

development.

So that's the time of reports, about 1300 houses.

It's about the 68 % growth of the town in basically about 15 years.

So it's quite a significant growth and that's one of the concerns we've had about this current

proposal.

Applicants made mention of a public footpath connexion from A44 through to the railway

station. That's just to show between the White House and the House of Sailor Panels, that

just shows the existing footpath route that would link from the A44 through Fields and

to the railway station. And for those not familiar, it's the existing mini roundabout

linking the A424 to the A429 which has the capacity issues at the present time

and one of the concerns that's been raised in the report. Thank you very much.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:16:39

Thank you very much Martin. Can I now ask the public speakers to come forward. So

for the Town and Parish Council I've got Councillor Eileen Viviani, an objector

Simon Randall and the applicant or the agent,

Jonathan Brown, the agent.

Thank you very much.

So you'll be called to speak in the order

in which I've called you up.

And can I just remind you again,

you've got three minutes to speak.

Councillor Watson will be keeping a close eye on that.

When you're ready to speak, would you please switch your microphone on?

Thank you.

The right one, I should think. Is that right?

Town/Parish Council - 0:17:34

This is developed by Eileen Viviani, sorry, Mortney Marsh Parish Council.

This development is located outside the development boundary of the town

and regarded as windfall and it's not welcomed.

The people of Mortney Marsh have asked the planning authority

to ensure that the development of the town is planned

either as part of a master plan for the wider area

or with regard to spatial elements within and around it in order to sustain its character,

place and setting in the landscape of the Cotswolds.

Town Council provided its views on this planning application and its objections remain as stated.

The officer's recommendation to refuse is supported.

GCC Highways' response on home to school transport showed a table as part of 16 -18 North Cots

Secondary Planning Area.

Could the figure of approximately $270 ,700 be clarified as it's for home to school transport,

which is for 16 to 18 and not supported by GCC?

Or does it relate to the secondary school education contribution, together with a library

contribution of approximately $38 ,000?

On a separate issue, the town council requests that the language surrounding sums of money

offered as part of proposed development be carefully worded by developers and local government

officers to avoid the public perception in paragraph 8 .2 .2 in respect of money offered

to the transport hub being regarded as an inducement. Without visibility of a strategic

housing economic land availability assessment, the town has not seen evidence of further

land that's become available since 2023. The local plan consultation mentioned at point

10 .20 .2, referring to a garden village style proposal,

relates to some of the most important considerations

in the officer's assessment of this case.

The town's response to CDC's local plan made the point

that a garden village is usually defined

as a new discrete settlement.

In response to the 2024 South Warwickshire preferred

options consultation and technical documents,

the council noted that a priority three area

outlined on the parish boundary

between the A44 and Great Walford in the Spatial Growth Strategy Priority Areas map, it was

concerned. This Priority 3 location lies within the special landscape area, close to the Cotswold

National Landscape and directly on the parish boundary.

In its assessment, the officer considers a very wide range of pertinent issues surrounding

the town at this time relating to the impact of cumulative development, the need for infrastructure

improvement including future road feasibility options and importantly the

need to plan development effectively to be sustainable for the years to come.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:20:30

Thank you. Thank you very much and now can I ask Mr Randall to speak. Can I

Town/Parish Council - 0:20:34

thank you very much for inviting me to speak. I am speaking on behalf of the

Shipton under which would parish council which I'm chair but I do

actually know the site very well because for 30 years I owned a property in

Blockley and I'm currently vice -chair of the Morton Show and have been involved

with the show for 40 years. You're probably wondering why Shipton

Underwich are concerned about this application and what is the common

theme that runs between Morton in Marsh and Shipton. Well it's a river evenload.

The river evenload rises in the Cotswold Hills above Morton and then flows 45

miles down and joins the River Thames. And before it joins the Thames, it has

already got effluent, sewage effluent from Mortyn in Marsh and probably a lot of

surface water. And therefore if approved, this will increase the amount of that

effluent and the amount of flooding that takes place. Why does it matter?

Firstly, the very name Mortyn in Marsh should actually ring a bell because the

word marsh should be stressed and you just have to ask people who in recent developments

what happens to their gardens when there's heavy rain.

Secondly, a number of villages downstream have suffered serious flooding, including

Bledington which has flooded ten times in the last 17 years, the witchwood villages

of Milton, Shipton, Myon and Ascot, plus Chalbury and Faller.

However, as they're all situated in the Evernote Valley, rain rushes down the roads and joins

the existing river Evernote and therefore makes it even more dangerous.

There are regular floods where the river overflows and in Shipton we have a residential home

where in 2007 the residents were actually let out and taken away in boats and there

in two other recent cases where the actual helm itself was evacuated.

Thirdly, we have been advised a changing climate and the fact that our rain is much more severe

in the past and future, coupled with further developments in Moreton Marsh and indeed any

downstream developments, will seriously increase the flooding both in Gloucestershire and Oxfordshire

villages where no number of attenuation ponds and special drains will prevent it.

Fourthly, we will in future be examining all developments that are planned in Moreton and

indeed elsewhere, and in particular we are very much imposed in our parish building on

flood plains.

Lastly, we are together with the Mourtney Marsh Town Council hoping to form a flood alliance of all the parishes all the way down the River Eamloade

because it's only going to get worse and that's going to affect our residents and indeed all those who might live nearby.

So, sorry, I do support the officer's recommendation or refusal and would be only too happy to

assist any further if there should be in the unlikely event of any appeal.

Thank you very much.

Mr Lambert.

Objector - 0:24:01

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:24:06

Good afternoon, Members.

Applicant/Agent - 0:24:09

We are naturally disappointed that the officer's recommendation is to refuse the application

as Bloor Homes considers the site to be a highly sustainable location.

It aligns with this council's corporate plan by taking an infrastructure first approach

and helping to address the significant shortfall of affordable housing in the district, which

as stated by this council is at the centre of a housing affordability crisis.

The site is located east of the town centre in an unconstrained location outside the Cotswold

National Landscape and Special Landscape areas.

By the Council's Ode to Mission, this site is considered to be a candidate for future

development subject to overcoming infrastructure capacity issues.

Bloor Homes considers that all infrastructure capacity issues have been addressed, which

is reinforced by the fact that no objections have been raised by any strategy consortee

relating to infrastructure, including Thames Water, your Environmental Health Officer,

Gloucestershire County Council in their capacity as Highways and Education Authority, and Warwickshire

As the officer notes, this scheme would make a meaningful contribution to the district's

housing supply, particularly in delivering affordable homes.

This proposal will provide up to 195 homes and 40 % of those will be affordable, sorry,

40 % of those up to 78 units will be affordable.

In a district where only two such were completed in quarter one of 25 and 26 and just 46 are

expected to be completed by the end of the year. This persistent failure to

deliver affordable homes in the district is having a profound and damaging effect

on local families. As of March 2025, 1729 households were in need of an affordable home.

These are not just numbers on a page, they represent real people in real need.

In addition to delivery of new homes, the scheme will provide significant

active travel measures through the creation of a new three metre wide active travel corridor

leading from the site to the public right of way adjacent even load road. These measures

will benefit both the new and existing residents as it provides a safe and direct link to Cotswold

Business Village. In addition, over 50 % of the entire site will be new green infrastructure

encompassing both formal and informal areas including a new play area, extensive tree

and hedgerow planting, an attenuation basin with wetland and vegetation, and the creation

and enhancement of existing habitats. The scheme commits to providing 10 % biodiversity

net gain and all new homes will comply with the latest building regulations and feature

PV panels and electric or EV charging points. In conclusion, this application has been well

considered and effectively addresses the infrastructure concerns raised by this Council. The proposed

scheme represents a sustainable form of development free from any technical

objections and it's situated in one of the most sustainable settlements in the

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:27:12

district thank you for listening thank you very much all of you like to go back

to your seats now I'd like to ask councillor Jenkinson who's the ward

member to come and do a presentation councillor Jenkinson you've got five

minutes

Ward Member - 0:28:07

Councillor Angus Jenkins, Moreton East and Todman. Thank you, Martin, for the thorough

expert job that you have done once again. Thank you, Committee, for the hard work that

you have done and the good work that I'm expecting you to do this afternoon.

The government's badly thought through plans for housing and their effect on us do not

change what makes a good development.

Bloor are a major private developer.

I can see they have tried in their way.

Five hectares of land for landscaping is good as long as maintenance is sorted.

And I note there may be some trees in the street.

There are other reasonable features.

But in the town context, the overall concept is flawed.

You have seen the recommendation to refuse. Please support it.

Housing for communities is needed, but not any.

I described for you the historic problems that left the town unbalanced and lacking infrastructure.

Integrated design and development is key to the future of Morton.

Inclusion of this site in the Schiele is no reason to accept.

Circumstances have changed and the design is not enough.

The bus stop design might be decent mitigation exercise,

but if it was what the bus company wanted and if we wanted the building in

the first place but they don't that's the bus company and it is not a reason

to build. I advise that the design for the cycle lanes does not meet active

travel recommendations. It is likely to be dangerous. Rush hour commuters and

teens should not be confused with long -distance seasoned cyclists and

Speedwatch reports many speeding vehicles down the a44

Other problems include noisy road noise some smells and nasty pollutants

Bloor acknowledge these for example

specifying higher specification glazing and whole dwelling ventilation

What happens in summer in the garden?

or in the green space. This is a plan for profits, not for an integrated master plan.

It will breed problems. Objections by the town council, locals and NGOs show that beyond

any orchestrated NIMBY reactions, there is real and reasonable concern. The principal

planner discussed eight main classes of issue in recommending refusal. He cited precedents

and principles that make sense.

First, it is not just that it is outside the town boundary.

It would be an isolated enclave.

As an example of its detached location,

please imagine walking children to primary school

and later picking them up,

or the chaos of cars parking in the old town.

Two return journeys for many,

with children that could take upwards towards two hours.

Audi busses won't fix that.

It has three critical infrastructure blocks.

Waste and foul water, medical practise infrastructure,

and overloaded highways that I want to emphasise.

The town's foul and waste water requirements

already exceed reliable capacity.

You've been hearing about that.

They did that some years ago,

and you know the problem of Thames Water.

You have seen the concerns of the Environment Agency and their conditions.

Delays in required capacity will be beyond 2030 most likely. At best they

don't have budget. Please remember also it's the whole system that matters and

every part of the Thames water system in Moreton is substandard. Councillor Cawe

could have explained this if he was here.

There may be low storm overflows from the STW,

which they note, but they are high at the pumping station.

If you feel obliged to approve, I

recommend a key feature for a condition.

Medical infrastructure is a big issue.

Let me read what the two practise leaders say to you again.

There is zero prospect for further development of the medical infrastructure in the community

for the foreseeable future.

And as such, we would advise against pushing forward any major development.

This does need to be visualised and factored into any type of development plan for obvious

reasons.

It is highly likely...

that further development in the town will actually induce medical poverty in the community

here. I propose condition.

Thank you very much for what you said.

Thanks.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:33:43

I will open the discussion for members' questions.

Councillor Brasington.

Thank you.

Sorry, I do have several questions.

Thank you, Martin, for another excellent, very comprehensive report as usual.

Regarding paragraph 3 .9, I have read that a few times.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:34:04

I am not quite certain, is flood zone 2 and 3 within the application site or near it?

The eastern boundary of the application site, there is a brook that flows alongside the

boundary of the site, that is flood zones 2 and 3 and part of that goes into the very

eastern part of the site.

The bulk of the site is flood zone 1.

Page 22, paragraph 7115, which is the town council's comments, the last sentence says

the application does not meet the criteria set out in the MPPF paragraph 129.

Is that a correct statement?

Yeah, I mean as you say that's from the town council. Paragraph 129 is talking about efficient

use of land, identified need for different types of housing, availability and capacity

of infrastructure and services both existing and proposed, as well as the potential for

further improvements on the scope to promote sustainable travel modes that limit future

car use. That's probably the bit there I'm referring to.

Does it or does it not meet the criteria?

I have referred to it specifically but the issues in that are similar to what we raised

in terms of sustainability of location accessibility and that sort of thing.

Could you put your microphone back on please?

Thank you.

Yes, so...

Like I said, there's issues there in terms of the way we're looking at it in the sustainability argument as a whole.

infrastructure and the lack of it in terms of other services and facilities

been provided to assist the development or the residential extension or growth

of the town in the planned period has been a particular issue so adding more

houses as to those infrastructure issues the fact that the sewage treatment works

can't currently accommodate the drainage from this development and

and there's issues with the capacity of the road in the town centre, notwithstanding the

fact that highways are raising no objection, they're still saying that's going to be made

worse, which raises air quality issues.

So you have to look at them in the round in the context of all these issues, once you

put them all together, then that comes together as part of the issues we have with this particular

proposal.

So, yes.

Turning now to page 35, these are comments by the Windrush Against Sewage Pollution,

which is a well -respected organisation. It mentions the Primrose Court land treatment

area and it says it's not operating within their permit from Environment Agency, but

looking at the Environment Agency's submission, it doesn't refer to it? Is that just an

permission by them or? The Primrose Court, there's a planning permission that goes back

to the 1950s which allows the water company to discharge foul water onto a field adjacent

to that development. So that's always, that's been consistent for probably 70 odd years.

The Primrose Court treatment works and this treatment works next to this site are all

interconnected and related but the focus for the environment agencies is

primarily in terms of the capacity of the treatment works next to this site

because that's where the waste goes to eventually and they have noted again

the capacity issues are rising at the moment and the fact that water has been

fair water has been discharged into water courses as a result of that lack of

capacity. The Environment Agency have just said that the local authority have

to be satisfied that this can be addressed and at the moment the condition is recommended

by Thames Water saying no occupation until those upgrades are put in place. So if you

have those upgrades in place through that condition there is a means to ensure that

it shouldn't get worse in terms of discharge of foul water into adjacent water courses.

So that would address the Environment Agency's comments in that respect.

Page 60, right at the top, it refers to concentrations of nitrogen dioxide below UK objectives.

And then it goes on to say that the QLEMS will still increase vehicle emissions if a

town centre adds to congestion.

This would conflict with aspirations of paragraph 2110.

It says it conflicts with the aspirations, but it doesn't say whether those levels are above or below the objective.

As set out by the Environmental Regulatory Service Air Quality Officer, the levels would be below the objectives.

But as set out on page 60, the Air Quality Officer has said,

becoming increasingly recognised that any increase

in air pollution, even where concentrations are below

the objective, can increase the incidences

of associated illness and disease.

So although it's not above the recognised level,

it is increasing it above the existing.

And highways acknowledge also there's going

to be an adverse impact on the capacity of those roundabouts.

The additional queuing lengths are rising for several, going towards a minute or more

long in terms of vehicles queuing there with their engines running adds to that as well.

So yes, technically it is not above the objectives set out in the regulations you mentioned.

It is still adding to the poor air quality in the town centre and that is one of the

issues when you add all the factors together in terms of congestion as well, it's another

thing that comes together that raises particular concerns about this development, especially

when you look at paragraph 110 of the MPPF which makes reference to air quality as well.

So it's, yeah, I mean that's all I can say really.

You mentioned about levels of nitrogen dioxide but one of the other pollutants of great concern

is particulates, PM10s. There's no mention of that. Do we assume that PM10 levels are

satisfactory because they haven't been mentioned.

All I can say is the applicant's done an air quality report which has been looked at by the relevant air quality officer and she's come back with the response she has.

So final question, please do know.

Page 81.

Regarding the industrial units area at the side of that,

do we know what the use classification is of that?

Sorry.

It is a mix of what was B1, EG now, B2 and B8, so storage and distribution.

So presumably if we got B2 and B8, there would be noise limits restricting the activities there?

I am not aware specific to each of those units. I would have to go back through the planning history.

What has been done is noise surveys have been undertaken which have recorded the noise events at that particular location.

And they've come back with an exclusion zone around the western part of the site which would

restrict development away from the area

But as a set out in the report potentially that would require acoustic fencing

next to the housing which would potentially be a problem from design point of view, but like I say the noise surveys have been undertaken and the

environmental health noise officer is satisfied subject to

condition

Okay, thank you very much

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:42:38

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:42:41

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:42:42

Councillor Judd. Thank you chair. I'll be a bit briefer than my very clever colleague.

It's just about the sustainability. So the applicant's agent said that this site is

But I seem to remember the last time that we had a large site in front of Morton and

Marsh that the primary school couldn't expand.

You've already mentioned problems with, or you haven't, but problems have already been

mentioned with the senior school availability for so many new houses.

you don't need a report to know how difficult it is to drive through Mortman in the Marsh

going over the bridge, the air pollution, the water pollution and sustainability talks

about the future. It says an integrated approach for economic, social, environmental and master

planning. Do you consider this application sustainable?

Officer - 0:43:51

No, for the reasons set out in the report. Like I said, I tried to explain to Councillor

Prussington, probably not too well, it's a combination of a lot of things coming together,

where it's the air quality, where it's the congestion, where it's the distance from the

town, the fact that people have to walk along the A44 with children or the shopping or whatever.

The level of development that's happened in the town in the last 15 years without any

real corresponding increase in services, facilities, employment provision. It just

gets to a point where you know the town needs to be needs to be a proper

strategic look at the town and the council is currently doing that we've

engaged feasibility studies in terms of a strategic growth of the town. It may

well be that Moreton does expand further and has more housing than is proposed

here but you would expect road infrastructure, highway improvements,

sewage infrastructure, all these things to be properly put in place as part of

that and it would all be linked together. So you do get something that doesn't feel

just like another lump of housing just put on one nature of the town and it's kind of

as a free standing enclave which doesn't really connect visually or physically with the rest

of the settlement. I mean this site is about 400 yards from the nearest housing on the

southern side of the A44. You have a cemetery, a football ground and an employment estate

and then you get to the housing. So it does feel quite detached from that as well. So

from just feeling integrated or part of that settlement.

It just feels incongruous and out of place, to be honest.

And then you've got the landscape impact

of such a large -scale eastward expansion

of residential development beyond

what is a relatively low -key eastern boundary.

So in combination, there's a lot of factors

which come together.

I mean, as I mentioned in the report,

you go back to the 2010 appeal,

which was called in by the Secretary of State,

where a similar issue has arisen,

where the inspector and the Secretary of State both agreed that 600 houses cumulatively was

too much at that time and it needed to be planned properly.

Whilst, yes, the MPPF has come in since, the circumstances are still very similar in terms

of just taking into account the strategic capacity of the town to take into account

further large -scale development without it coming alongside the infrastructure and services

that you would allow it to integrate more successfully with the settlement as a whole.

So it's not a case of poor planning, but it's just something that, it's what you get when

you get kind of ad hoc standalone planning applications rather than more integrated,

holistic, strategic developments, which the local plan is trying to achieve.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:46:31

I couldn't have asked for a full -on answer than that.

That's perfect.

Are there any further questions?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:46:38

Councillor Fowles.

Thank you, Chairman.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:46:43

I would like to echo the comments you made about Martin's report, which is excellent.

In terms of the comments and objections, I have never read so many, so I think that speaks

volumes for how concerned the community is and the parish councils.

I know that there is quite a lot of information in here from neighbouring parish councils,

particularly about flooding and about effluent.

Going forward, or in this context, they are not statutory consultees, these parish councils,

but I do remember in other developments that we have had where we have invited neighbouring

parish councils to submit their comments.

So what exactly is he saying?

Are these just writing in his objectors?

Or what sort of way should we give to them?

Because they're very thorough, very detailed.

And there's a huge section in here about the impact

in terms of the Evenlode River, et cetera, et cetera.

And I just want to get a bit of clarity

about the role of these neighbouring parishes

and the organisation such as WASP.

Officer - 0:47:52

They're almost quasi -statutory bodies.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:47:58

So you've got Thames water on the one hand, they've got this huge energy that's been put

into that area.

I know it well because I was the portfolio holder when the flood protection scheme was

in place, so I'm well aware of the words Morton in the marsh.

But I just want a bit of clarity on the role of the neighbouring parish councils.

Officer - 0:48:19

The neighbouring parishes aren't a statutory council team or a Windrush group, they are

relevant bodies and we take their views into account just as we would anybody else.

So their comments, if they are relevant to planning and raised planning matters,

then they carry equal weight to every other person who writes in.

Any other questions?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:48:38

Can I just ask a question in that case?

We were told really that because Thames Water have said they can upgrade the sewage infrastructure,

that that's not really a material consideration or that's not something

that should weigh against, weigh in favour of refusing the application. But on page

91 10 108 it does say that potential for foul water emanating from a development

discharge into the water course is a material planning consideration. Could

you just, there seems to be a sort of slight discrepancy between those two

things, could you just straighten that out for me?

Officer - 0:49:27

Yes, I mean it goes back to like the last committee we had the Fairford application,

it was a similar issue there with the capacity of the serious treatment works. Yes, the potential

for foul water to discharge into a water course is a material consideration and one would

need to be satisfied. Obviously there's some measures to mitigate that or prevent that.

Normally, this Thames Water in this instance have indicated the use of a condition, saying

no occupancy until the upgrades have been undertaken.

So therefore, with the use of that condition, that will put a mechanism in place to reasonably

address the potential flow of water into that watercourse.

So therefore, you do have a mechanism there that can address the issue.

And as I said in the report as well, you have to remember that the control of foul water

into water courses is covered under the legislation of the Water Industries Act

and therefore that is something outside the control of planning so and that's

not something we you know we can't duplicate controls available to other

legislative bodies so but it is a material consideration but with the

condition I'd say no occupation we consider that to be to address the

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:50:36

matter yeah. And then just in a couple of places you've mentioned that the S106

agreement hasn't covered what should be agreed. One was the biodiversity net gain

issues and another one was on page 63 which was the affordable self -build

custom -build plots. Would you expect at this outline stage the S106

agreement? Those things should have been finalised now or some part of the

Officer - 0:51:13

106 rolled forward to the reserve matter stage? No, if you were to grant

outline permission then normally the section 106 would be completed prior to

permission being issued. I wouldn't be left to the reserve matter stage. The

applicant is in the process and have been discussing with our solicitors and

the GCC solicitor about finalising a section 106 it's just not at the point

where it's completed. Thank you very much. Are there any further questions?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:51:37

comments. Councillor Coleman is desperate to make a comment. Thank you.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:51:43

Mr Chair, it's best to get me out of the way early on, I always think. But it gives me

the opportunity to say that it was both a pleasure and almost indeed an honour to listen

to three great public servants today giving their views. Councillor Viviani from Wonton

Marsh, a distinguished visitor from I think Oxfordshire and indeed possibly outstripping

them all, Councillor Angus Jenkinson who's clearly done a huge amount of

research, one of the most thorough pieces of evidence that he supplied in the

supplement and I just wish I could perform for my community like he does

for his. Also to say the representative, the applicant who did

understandably look a little bit intrepidation that you will get out of

here alive and everybody understands that everybody's got a job to do and

everybody's got to make a living. The main comment I want to do is to

draw attention to paragraph 1038 in the italics where the local plan partial

update issues and options options consultation says building more and more

this is its own council statement building more and more houses to reduce

house prices which we know is the government's purpose in giving us this

lunatic a thousand plus houses a year dwellings a year to build dwellings does

not work particularly in Cotswold District. There is much evidence to support this. Our

district has been delivering to significantly more housing that has been required in recent

years, but the affordability has continued to worsen. An awful lot of that housing of

course went into Moreton in Marsh as we know without any or hardly any benefits compared

to the reasonable amount that Syrinsester was able to negotiate taking a decade over

it with the Bathurst Estates' 2 ,300 dwellings. I mention dwellings because I want to raise

is take the opportunity in closing these comments

to say that I would urge our professional staff to start

using the word apartments to identify ways in which

high density can be obtained.

There is a point of view that an outsider might take,

say the minister in government, saying, oh, you can't do it.

Well, not 195, put in 390.

Just go up to five storeys.

it wouldn't work of course because we're the Cotswolds and it's already a

prominent site but I still think that if we start to think about apartments we

are increasing affordability and the opportunity on some occasions for people

in retirement to move locally to smaller accommodation so thank you for allowing

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:54:17

me to take that opportunity. Thank you that's an interesting topic which could

perhaps be taken at another stage out of the planning committee but for

discussion thank you very much councillor Coleman councillor Judd I

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:54:28

propose that the committee supports the officers recommendation to refuse the

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:54:38

application Thank You councillor Judd I'll second that councillor Breslington

is seconding that okay before we move to the vote there are other people who

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:54:50

want to speak so council bridges Oh David first I have council bridges next

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:54:56

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:55:00

on the list it's a quick comment anyway just like to applaud the fact is 40 %

available affordability but notes that it's next to a sewage tree treatment

plant. I don't think I'd want to live there. That's an interesting comment. Thank you very much.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:55:15

Councillor David Fowles - 0:55:18

Councillor Fowles. Yes, thank you. I just like to add to what Councillor Coleman said

about Councillor Jenkinson's report which was very thorough and it's

refreshing to be able to read it. I'm glad he didn't have to read it out but

also Councillor Coleman's a real servant of his own community and has been for

longer than virtually all of us. So you shouldn't put yourself down because

everybody else sometimes does. I just like to clarify what was said if I may

about a colleague who's not able to be here because he had a prior engagement

which is the Councillor for Moreton West. That's not because he doesn't want to be

here he just had a prior commitment and unlike sometimes other members he has

actually got a substitute but I know he's as committed to Moreton as

Councillor Jenkinson when they work together. I think that's great for the

of the town and I say results in the creation of an ad hoc piecemeal standalone enclave of

residential development would integrate poorly with both the existing settlement and the landscape

joining the town etc so I'm 100 % behind the officers recommendation thank you

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:56:38

oops thank you very much councillor Fowles I would also like to echo my

thanks to councillor Jenkinson for providing that an exceptional piece of

work well in advance of the meeting so he had a chance to read it so does

anyone else have a comment or shall we move to the vote? So the vote is to

support the officers recommendation to refuse this application.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:57:06

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:57:09

You can talk about yourselves for a few minutes.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:57:50

just while we have the changeover but then I shall bang the gavel again.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:58:07

We're just having a pause for a couple of minutes to allow people to go to the loo and get a glass of

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:58:17

water. I'm just allowing a pause. It's a little bit early to take a comfort break but a couple

of people have asked for one, so we will have a break just for a couple of minutes to allow

the new...

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:58:34

Does anyone else need a comfort break at this juncture?

8 25/01036/OUT - Land East Of Cotswold Business Village

9 25/01970/PLP - Land At Ethans Orchard

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Foulton.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:58:53

Just back in the nick of time, we are going to restart.

Thank you.

We're now moving on to the next application, which is Item 9 in our schedule, which is

permission in principle for the erection of one self -built dwelling at Land and Eathons

Orchard, Middle Cheddworth, Gloucestershire. As you remember, this came up at our last

meeting and we had adjourned, we waited, deferred is the word I'm looking for, deferred for

site inspection briefing so now we have it back again in front of us. So the case

officer is Amy Hill and the ward member is Councillor Paul Hodgkinson. So Amy

would you kindly update us? Thank you. There was an additional comment that's

Officer - 0:59:41

come in since the publication of the report raising concerns over the

intention of the applicants, flooding concerns, impacts on the surrounding

ecology and heritage and the preservation of the beauty of the area.

If I could show the slides now.

I was going to do this as a relatively quick run through as more of a reminder from last

time.

So, just a reminder, that all you're looking at today, all you're considering today is

the location of the development, the land use and the amount of development.

So essentially you might be asking yourself the question of is it possible for a dwelling

house to be on this site to be acceptable.

and then so only about the super to the site you can't and reminding you that

can't attach any conditions to the current applications of the planning

principle but you would be able to attach conditions at the technical

detail stage if relevant. You can see the site I put it as a star this time in blue

so I'm hoping that we visible to all. So we're in the conservation area in the

national landscape with some listed buildings nearby and you can see the

that path to the rear.

Again, just to show you the site and how Chadworth

is a very long linear structure, sorry, linear village,

and to the north the site goes down into the valley,

which you can't see particularly, but I assure you is.

So the site again, so again, my apologies if I say anything,

if I say the site, I mean both areas,

but you've got the paddock there, all owned by the applicant

that in the left, on the left -hand side,

Is that with red and stars is the site and the area outlined in blue is where the garage is with parking?

So you can just quickly go through these to remind you of what the site looked like

and

the outbuilding currently there

the access and

The views up and down through Chadworth and this is at the back of the site along the public right away

just looking out then back in towards the site and

area. We do have a couple of Google Street views to show you what it looks like and some

of the more historic ones and back to July 2009, so before the hedge was there and you

used to see a lot more across the valley. Thank you.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:02:02

Thank you very much and I'm sure that Councillor Fowls would like to say thank you very much

for the way you outlined the site

with not just in green and blue.

Thank you very much.

So I would like to now ask the speakers to come forward.

So the objective is Sarah Calder

and the applicant is George Charnick.

We don't have a speaker from the town council,

but the town council's objections have been included

in your schedule of applications.

Sorry.

Parish council, sorry, I apologise to Cheddwa.

Cheddwa Parish Council's objections are on page 133 to 135

of your agenda pack. So you've all had a chance to read them and after these

speakers have spoken to us I'll give you a minute to look at the parish council's

objections. But now can I ask Sarah Calder to speak. You have three minutes

and we'll let you know when your time is up. Good afternoon.

Objector - 1:03:25

Good afternoon. My name is Sarah Calder and I'm a resident of

Chetworth. Councillors, ladies and gentlemen, we trust that your site visit

has given the committee an understanding as to the importance of preserving this

landscape and how inappropriate allowing a development on this site would be. Our

speech, Jenny Wigley Casey, a highly respected barrister who specialises in planning law,

stated very forcibly that this planning application was legally flawed and highly precarious.

She states the decision to approve would almost certainly be quashed by the courts.

Making the removal of the garage fundamental to the acceptance of this application is legally

unenforceable when the said garage is on a piece of land the council has no

control over and does not form part of the application. Contrary to this

Conservation Officer's statement the application site has never hosted any

built structure. Its openness once contributed significantly to the rural

charm and sense of place along the valley. However, following the first

planning refusal, the paddock has been enclosed by the growing of a high hedge that virtually

encircles the site, obscuring this previously open land. This manipulation of the landscape

cannot in itself justify development. The Cotswold Landscape Strategy stresses avoiding

intrusion into open valley landscapes, the importance of retaining green gaps and preventing

suburbanizing influences.

A dwelling on the paddock would conflict with this strategy.

The site has been the subject of numerous previous refusals, and I quote from one of

them, the proposal would harm by fundamentally and irreversibly changing the character of

this part of the conservation area by blocking views across the valley and contributing to

incremental urbanisation of the area. Both conservation and landscape officers

in a previous application concluded this site is inherently unsuitable for

residential development. Failure to respect previous refusals on this site

is also in breach of the authorities enhanced statutory responsibilities

under the levelling up and regeneration Act of 2023. This Act effectively

requires authorities to proactively take steps to positively conserve and enhance

the special qualities of the AOMB.

If you approve this PLP you were ignoring and dismissing all the

reasoning rulings and conclusions made by numerous council officers and

inspectors who previously refused development. These reasons, rulings and

conclusions still apply

Thank you very much. Thank you

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:06:45

Mr.. Charnick

Three minutes

Objector - 1:06:51

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:06:52

Objector - 1:06:53

Applicant/Agent - 1:06:54

Thank you very much for giving me another opportunity to address the committee about our plans

And basically I all I can do is confirm what I said at the previous meeting the proposal is a low -level

grass -roofed innovative dwelling

to the west that is built into the slope so as to blend into the landscape.

Plus a complete renovation of the eastern site by removal of the garage, hard standing, restoring natural contours,

with landscaping to include fruit trees, all of which can be legally agreed in a unilateral undertaking.

Since the previous meeting, you have visited the site.

You've seen the entrance, parking, and garage all approved

70 years ago that we are willing to give up.

No doubt you could imagine how much better it will look

when the garage is taken away and the area landscaped.

You may be able to imagine the low -profile modest dwelling

blended into the landscape, an innovative,

of highly insulated dwelling of architectural quality

that costs little to run.

You now know that vehicles can be hidden behind the hedge

and the hedges will be trimmed and the sewage outflows purified.

In fact, the hedges should be trimmed any day.

It's done once a year, but because of the changing seasons,

it seems to get later and later each year.

You now know about the pit process and that saying yes today does not give us carte blanche

to design something which is unacceptable in a conservation area.

And that offices can be involved in reviewing the design throughout the technical detail

stage.

You are also aware that innovative dwellings that meet the requirements of the relevant

policies can be built as long as they preserve and enhance the conservation area.

The Government says the country needs 1 .5 million new houses, but that doesn't mean

they must all be big houses in large clusters of standard design.

Surely there is room and opportunity for committed and local self -builders like ourselves.

Finally, officers are recommending permit and therefore we must trust that they have

done due diligence in their assessment and that they have a clear vision for what is

possible on this site and it is a vision that we share.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:09:35

Can I ask Councillor Hodgkinson if he would like to speak for five minutes?

up to five minutes.

You don't have to hit the...

Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon.

Ward Member - 1:09:55

So, you've obviously seen from the paperwork that this site

lies within the Chetworth Conservation Area

and also the Cotswolds National Landscape,

both of which, as I'm sure you know,

carry the highest level of protection under national and local policy.

Now this 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, to the openness and to the appearance

of this sensitive rural gap as you've seen in the photos.

And it sits in the middle of the village of Chetworth.

So I want to deal with two things.

Firstly, the heritage impact to this application

and then secondly, the landscape impact.

So starting with heritage impact, as we've said,

the site lies within the Chetworth Conservation Area.

It's a designated heritage asset of the highest significance

under the Planning, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990.

Section 72 .1 of the Act requires the local authority to, and I quote,

pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.

And 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 must be clearly and convincingly justified. So 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. Now 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's visually prominent, it's a sloping field that frames the rural approach to the village

from the east.

And introducing residential development here would neither preserve nor enhance the conservation

area and the harm would be permanent and irreversible.

In practise, and this has been mentioned before, the previous duty on the local authority to,

and I quote, take impacts on the AONB national landscape into account.

By contrast, the new duty on local authorities expects them to, and I quote, proactively

take steps to positively conserve and enhance the special qualities of the AONB.

In line with this duty, you should therefore today be asking yourselves as a committee,

does the granting of permission for this application proactively take steps to

positively conserve and enhance the special qualities of the Cotswold

National Landscape? It is clear to me that the answer is no. So in summary this

proposal I believe is unacceptable. The site's location with a nationally

protected landscape and a designated conservation area makes it highly

sensitive and 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 Chedworth

Conservation Area and the scenic quality of the Cotswold National Landscape.

these qualities cannot be replaced once they're lost.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:13:57

Now, several members, including myself,

went on a site inspection briefing to visit the site.

And I'd like to ask for your comments first.

Lee Councillor Fowle, see you there.

Thank you, Chairman.

Councillor David Fowles - 1:14:12

Right, can we just, your last photograph Amy, I thought was, well, I think they were all

great photographs, could you just put up the last photograph?

Because that's, well I think you said it was in 2009 that was taken, correct?

Yeah, which is very, very different to what we saw because it's obviously got lots of,

as the objector said, lots of very high hedges there.

I should just say for the members who didn't actually come on the site, not only did we

look at the site, go on to the site, and that was great that the applicant let us do that,

we also walked up the lane and you had a wonderful shot up the lane, which could you just go

back to that?

Just can't really, no.

That's as good as the point I want to make.

The thing that I felt were really clear about Middle Cheddworth was that all the properties

on the left -hand side were sort of basically built in a line and there was very relatively

small gaps on that lane.

Whereas the houses on the right -hand side, they were like punctuated.

I came in looking at basically an open landscape with an occasional house.

I think there were two, possibly three, compared with 20 on the north.

And I felt that was a really important feature.

And the two offices that were there, you were one, and obviously Justin was the other,

said you've got to imagine this without the trees.

The trees are irrelevant.

This is all about would a design in principle sit well in that landscape.

And I totally concur with what's been said by the ward member.

I think that is a very important feature of Cheddworth, the openness on the right -hand

side compared with the left -hand side.

I just felt very uncomfortable about something being built on that site, but we'll come onto

that under questions and comments.

It's also interesting to note that an objector had helpfully put a couple of pictures on

a telegraph pole which showed the site when the trees or the hedges weren't there. So

totally agree with what's been said by the ward member and the objector. I think that's

a really important parcel of land and important to protect it in the context of that lane

and Middle Chedworth.

Thank you. Councillor Coleman.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:16:42

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:16:45

Thank you Madam Chair. I'm grateful first to being given a lift there and back by

Councillor Bridges. We found our way to the site by the longest possible route

which allowed us to see quite a lot of the south side as well as the east end

as I'm putting that way of Treadworth and I don't think I can add much to what

Councillor Fowles has said in terms of the appearance of the site. I would like the last

slide up again though because the one thing that it has in common with the current one

is I think it's got the same garage in it. And as we might hear later, the issue of whether

a garage is worth in effect keeping or removing we might come to later. Thank

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:17:38

you councillor Coleman. Councillor Bridges you were also there.

Councillor Nick Bridges - 1:17:46

Well councillor Fowls has said most things. Isn't that look very different

from what we saw and I just felt why have they put all that hedging in now

just basically trying to think back to how that area could look, which is like that.

And that is so much better than anything that could be put there.

I didn't have a problem with the garage shed, although if it was lower down on the slope,

again that would open up more of a view.

And I'm reminded the priority really is about preserving the view, preserving the feel that

you get when you go there.

So I've kind of had a... I keep changing my mind on it to be honest, but the way I'm at the moment I'm thinking,

wouldn't it be nice if it looked like that?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:18:44

Thank you. Yes, I also went on with the site inspection briefing and I understand what

everyone is saying, but the fact is it doesn't look like that anymore.

It's got the hedge there. So the

the the view across the valley, the lovely view across the valley is

no longer there.

And I don't think there's any possibility at the moment of the hedge

being removed to reinstate that view.

So really, the question

arises and this is what our conservation officer has told us,

whether we would get part of that view back

if we allowed the development on the left -hand side

of the site as we see it now,

while removing the garage and the hard standing

and opening up the right -hand side of the site,

would that counterbalance the detrimental effect

of building something on the left side of the site?

So I think it's very difficult

and I should be very interested in the discussion

because clearly this is not about a specified design.

and this is about planning in principle,

can we imagine that there is any sort of design

that would sit comfortably on that site

without having an adverse impact

on the lovely village of Chetworth

and wood building on that part of the site

and allowing that garage and that hard standing

to be removed and this site landscaped on that side,

would that improve,

would that counterbalance any effect of having a house on the other side?

That's really what we're being asked today.

And so I don't think I'm adding anything to the conversation really.

I think it's just a very difficult decision

and we'll be interested in the discussion that we have.

We're moving on to questions now.

Councillor Fales, have you got a question?

I have a question.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:20:36

To do a site visit, Chairman, looking for guidance from the officers.

Councillor David Fowles - 1:20:41

one of the members of the site was Councillor Cawr who's not able to be here.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:20:53

Have we got any comments from him? No we don't. If not, we had a discussion as we walked

round. Is it appropriate for one of us to reflect on Councillor Cawr's comments

because he took the trouble to go there he just can't be here today. I would have

Councillor David Fowles - 1:21:14

said that it probably isn't but I'll take legal advice on that. Can Councillor

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:21:18

Fowls report what he thinks? Is Councillor Cawle's opinion? I don't think it's

Councillor David Fowles - 1:21:23

appropriate to use hearsay of what was in his mind. He had the

It's not hearsay, it's what I heard said.

But...

Officer - 1:21:37

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:21:41

Officer - 1:21:42

Councillor Michael Vann - 1:21:45

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:21:49

Councillor Fowles, we've all pretty much agreed that you can't say what you imagine

Councillor Corey's thinking.

I did get in touch with him and say it was a shame that he hadn't, he wasn't going

be here and I guess he would have had the opportunity. I said it was a shame he

wasn't going to be here and it's so yeah he could have sent in a comment if he'd

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:22:13

wanted to. Yeah any questions now? Councillor Coleman. I don't think so

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:22:15

take too long. First of all it says this is a permission in principle but it

seems to have the initials PLP and I'm wondering what the L stands for if it's

a regular misprint. It's not a misprint but I really couldn't tell you why

Officer - 1:22:29

someone input the planning and principle application type as PLP. I do not know.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:22:39

Because we don't have that very often and as I understand it, sorry to ask this question,

would I be right very roughly in understanding that if PLP is granted today that the permission

would only take place if officers were satisfied that a scheme had been developed which met

their requirements, and if they couldn't do that, could it in any way come back before

this committee? In other words, is this the last time we ever see this, even if the officers

and the applicant can't come to an agreement?

So in short, so the next stage, so if you granted permission today, the next stage would

Officer - 1:23:26

be for them to submit a technical details application. That runs a lot, very similarly

to a full application, as in we'd consult with the ward members we used to at the start

of an application, and if they chose to request for it to be taken to committee, then you

could indeed potentially see the application again, almost irrespective of what the officer

was recommending.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:23:53

Because there are weaknesses in this approach, but that does sound like there is the possibility of a further

review and so I

think the other question I've got is to do with hedging.

Would I be right, so this is just a cheque, that by and large it's an English person's right to erect

and allowed to grow whatever hedge they like, subject only to the high hedges

regime brought in a few years ago to try and curb lay landie, in which I know from

my own ward is by no means easy to enforce. In short, yes, we have no control

Officer - 1:24:34

over the existing hedges that are around the site. And even as part of planning

application we can put on management plans to a degree but we can't control

that in perpetuity. Can we though condition it?

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:24:43

Officer - 1:24:49

So for instance not at this stage but if at the technical detail stage we said

either we wanted the hedges removed or we wanted to keep the hedges you can put

a landscaping condition on and obviously they have to then come in with a

landscaping scheme we have to consider that whether that's appropriate or not

but even with that usually they have about a five year but they need to be

maintained for about five years after that point they'd go outside of our

control again.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:25:18

Thank you. Are you finished with your questions? Councillor Fales. Thank you. I'd

Councillor David Fowles - 1:25:22

like to build on what Councillor Coleman has already said. On the site we had

quite a long conversation, not just about the site, but about the

permission when it's planning in principle and what that

actually meant. And I described it at the last meeting before we went on the sites as

a sort of Joseph Heller situation, a sort of catch -22. If we do give planning in principle,

it has to come back to the officer or to the committee to have the design approved. And

if we don't, it could still come back with a design. So I'd really welcome certainly

Justin's, because he has spent quite a long time talking to Justin on the site about what

what we were actually really looking at when it comes to design in principle, because the

applicant's talking about putting a building on there that's going to be hidden with a

grassed roof, et cetera, and Justin talked quite a lot about that. I also would like

to clarify, as far as I was concerned, and the reason that I wanted that photograph there

is the hedges are irrelevant. You both said on site whether the hedges are here or not,

as irrelevant. So I'd like to imagine a site like that with a dwelling on it and that's why I was

taking the view I did. So could we have the view from the conservation officer please? Thank you.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:26:44

Yes, Stephen first, I just step in first about the hedges which I know in terms of conservation

Officer - 1:26:48

there's nationally, no, historic England guidance regarding them. There is still an element, the

hedges are there, they are a material consideration that the site is that you don't currently have

those views certainly when we talk about landscape and national the Cotswold

National landscape having hedges around the site whilst you have to be mindful

that they could go down they could be taken down tomorrow and they're not a

permanent feature to say they're irrelevant is too strong is that they

are there that is what the site context currently is so I wouldn't like to use

the word irrelevant with regard to the hedges. Thank you for that clarification

Justin, can you chit in?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:27:24

I think in historic England terms, it would be ephemeral,

Officer - 1:27:28

and they should not be relied upon to justify development

that does not stand in its own right.

So I think we have to assume that the hedges could

be removed at any time, and anything that is built here

has to be acceptable if it is, if the views are completely

open.

I think, what was the other part of your question again?

Councillor David Fowles - 1:27:54

We were talking about the whole... because some of us, I personally never come across

being an application where we were approving a design in principle. It seemed worse than

an outline planning permission. It's just something and nothing. And your view of that,

because you said, look, if we give design in principle, that doesn't mean we're giving

permission for something to be built on here. It's really exploring that. Which I think

is the basis of what Amy was saying as well. Absolutely, I mean we have been

Officer - 1:28:24

discussing this site for a very long time and I think I mean I said in terms

of the principle it could almost boil down to which half of the site is

actually the more sensitive the east or the west because all along we've said

something might be possible in the west if the eastern half is restored and the

eastern half is more prominent as you drive into Chedworth and of course it

abounds, it's next to the public right of way.

So it sort of boils down to that.

And what we've always, and even with this current scheme,

we've not said that the development would cause no harm.

The question is, would the harm be mitigated

down to the point where the benefit would outweigh it?

So actually, there was benefit that outweighed the harm.

That is the big question.

Design is fundamental.

We have had multiple proposals put forward,

none of which we felt were good enough so far.

The simplistic nature of a permission principle on a site this very sensitive is

Unfortunate

Because the details except I think the principle it to my mind is is dependent on good design

Unfortunately because of the nature because in the past we've said something might be possible here I

Couldn't turn around under this application and say no I object to it. However, although I supported it

it was not without considerable reservations because the design is so

fundamental to the principle, it's fundamental to the level of harm, it's

fundamental to the planning balance in relation to the benefit that would come

from removing the garage and all the sort of earthworks around the garage.

Does that sort of answer your question?

Councillor David Fowles - 1:30:04

Just supplementary to Justin. Clearly the applicant has got a design in mind but

we're not in a position to see that design. Clearly as the ward member has

said and you've said there's a lot of history on this site of buildings that were not acceptable.

And I have to say that when we were looking at that lane, the house behind, which was

built in the 60s and I think is now subject to probate, was for me not a particularly

attractive house, not in the vernacular of Chetwyeth as far as I was concerned. So, leading

question, wouldn't it be simpler if the applicant just came back with the scheme that he has

in mind and apply for planning rather than this sort of murky thing which is called in

principle because he's clearly got something in mind.

It's essentially an irrelevant question. We have to consider the application that's

Officer - 1:30:54

currently before us. You can't ask them to submit a different type. They just have to

consider this.

Did you want to say anything to that Justin?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:31:05

Officer - 1:31:08

I'm simply going to come back to Councillor Fowls on the past advice given has been if

anything is built here it must not block the view. That was vital. That was where the idea

of it being low came from. But as Amy said that's not something we can consider on the

current application unfortunately.

Councillor Brasington.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:31:31

Thank you. One of my questions has just been answered by Justin. The other one quite straightforward

Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:31:33

One of the objectives says the site is a triple SI.

That's not correct, is it?

No, it's not a triple SI.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:31:46

I just wanted to ask one.

We're allowed to ask about location, land use, and amount.

So when we're talking about amount,

does that mean how many dwellings, one, two, three,

et cetera, et cetera?

Or does it mean we can talk about the size of the dwelling,

because I think that would be quite crucial. Are we allowed to talk about that

under the heading of amount? I would say at this point you're only really

Officer - 1:32:11

considering a dwelling house because you can't put conditions or the like

on it. With an outline permission sometimes, depending what they

are, you could actually say it can't be over 120 square metres for instance but

we don't have that function available to us so if we can't control it we can't

really consider it. Okay so when we're saying amount it's one dwelling

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:32:32

essentially yeah okay and if there's no further questions can we move on to

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:32:35

comments Councillor van thank you were the first with your hand up thank you I

Councillor Michael Vann - 1:32:43

wasn't able to go with everyone else I went this morning and I have a bit of a

puzzle page hundred and forty one in this case of the application site is

considered to be outside the envelope of the village of Chetwy.

It abuts it.

Also, we're told that it's a linear village.

My comment is that I drove from one end to the other, beyond the seven tonnes, down quite

of it beyond to the east this site.

And it gives all the appearance to me of being a linear village from beginning to end, not

abutting a village, but in the village.

And one thing there which rather supports this view, there are not one but two separate

Victorian letter boxes.

So there were three actually along.

And what you have a letter box because you're posting letters

of people live there, all part of the village.

And the fact that there are most unusually

two Victorian letter boxes certainly points out

It's been a village for a very long time and just because you call a bit of it middle Chetworth

It's Chetworth from beginning to end. So I think we are in a village rather than abutting a village

comment, please

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:34:38

That was more of a question but there we go, I'm sure Amy can answer that

Officer - 1:34:45

So the part we're looking at with the question of whether it's in or abuts relates to policies

DS3 and DS4, so more about whether or not development in that location is acceptable.

With a lot of our villages, and so I'm going to say our DS3 settlements, we end up with

lots of bits of agricultural land sort of going in and out of them.

And so there was discussions and we have appeal decisions that support this that essentially

if you have housing there and housing there that doesn't make this bit in the

village for the purpose of DS3 but I would admit that if you're walking past

it's not like you'll see it and think oh I've left Chedworth it's just a question

of for the so for the context of that we're really talking about DS3 in the

village as in is it currently part of that domestic residential usually

residential parts of this section of Chedworth as a village so that's why

we've used the word abuts rather than actually within for the because we don't

have the five at length of play currently it's a somewhat irrelevant

point because it's very much served once it if something was constructed it would

then read as in the village hopefully that makes sense but I would I wouldn't

worry about it it's to do with how we were going dealing with appeals and

decisions with the s3 and exactly when patches of agricultural paddock land was

considered in or outside a settlement.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:36:07

Councillor Julia Judd - 1:36:15

Okay, Councillor Chad. Thank you chair. I've got a few comments to make. First of all

is when we're in the Cotswolds, so there's lots of our villages are

built on these steep hills and there are so many villages where there is a linear

a road running along the side of the hill where there is more development, historic

development on the upper side of the hill and sparse development on the lower side of

the hill whether they're period properties or whether they're modern properties.

But it's more sympathetic on the lower side because obviously those properties affect

everybody else's view.

I feel it's cruel to have grown that hedge.

It's so... of course you're allowed to do it,

but it's just not a particularly nice thing to do.

And I feel that the hedge is now being used as a bargaining chip.

I feel uncomfortable about the fact that the hedge would be cleared on the right -hand side

if we give PLP on the left -hand side.

I mean, that's not playing cricket in my view.

The other thing is that if PLP is granted today, the level of scrutiny that this committee

has given this application for PLP is going to be lost in the next application for full

planning, not entirely lost, but the depth and the level of scrutiny I feel part of that

will be lost. And finally, I just feel as though we're between a rock and a hard place.

As the Heritage Officer has said, everything depends on the design and we don't know if

it's actually possible to come up with a design which would ever be acceptable.

Having a grass roof doesn't cut it for me, all those things.

Without seeing the actual design, you're still going to get a driveway, the detritus of bins,

then there's the garage that they'll want and then they'll want this and then they'll

want that.

And then all of a sudden, what is being sold to us today is an unobtrusive, almost invisible property that's not going to affect anybody and they're going to have a...

We don't know any of that. We can't condition it. We have no control whatsoever if we grant PLP today.

Only if we receive a well -considered, full planning application with technical details can we take this application seriously.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:39:09

Councillor Julia Judd - 1:39:11

I suggest that we go against the officer's recommendation to approve and refuse this application.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:39:17

Can I just jump in?

Of course, yes.

As a proposal, obviously, I will need refusal reasons.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:39:29

Obviously, as Amy sort of set out, we are considering land use, location, amount of development.

not having a design in front of us can't be a refusal reason.

So we all need to know. I've noticed, Dan, you've mentioned driveway,

you sort of referred to suburbanization and paraphernalia.

That could be a route to go down, looking at conservation and natural landscape harm,

which satisfies paragraph 11, but I just might need a bit more from you in terms of what you all...

This could be one or the other.

No, no, you could do...

Could I ask one? I mean, I have my feeling...

Councillor Julia Judd - 1:39:59

Beg your pardon. My feeling is very much the combination of the two.

It is an incredibly sensitive, it feels like a country lane despite the fact that the higher

slope has a lot of properties on it, but it doesn't feel like a village lane, what one

would normally consider a village lane.

And that gap, I know from previous planning committee meetings here that Justin, who has

a very, very deep understanding of these villages. He likes these gaps with the view, which has

been denied, Chetwirth and all the other people. So I think it's placement, it's setting, so

the MPPF 167 has to apply here. And the detritus thing, which is something we would never have

control over.

that is not going to be a problem.

I would like to know what you

Hang on a minute.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:40:58

When we are going down that route,

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:41:00

we have to balance public

benefits versus harm.

You are satisfied that

effectively the removal of that

garage and other public benefits

arising from the erection of a

So we'd have a heritage refusal reason and a coastal national landscape refusal reason based on

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:41:22

yeah so we're based on domestication of the landscape the introduction of

residential uses and paraphernalia you mentioned loss of a green gap I know

EN policy EN 11 does criteria C does result development should not result in the loss of

open space within a conservation area that makes a valuable contribution to the characters you've

talked about. So yeah and obviously just so members are aware from a paragraph 11

point of view because obviously we've got to consider the presumption obviously harm to

the national landscape and harm to a designated heritage asset would be a

reason or would have a strong reason for refusing applications. Members again

you're satisfied from a presumption point of view we've sort of covered that

as well so yeah I don't know if you need to... I don't know if we want to put the...

If we've got the proposal we can see if there's a second here and then just go up on some refuges.

Yes, Councillor Fowles wants to second it. So would you like to...

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:42:14

Michael, Dr David.

Yeah, we're still in comments, yes, but I think you put your hand up to second the proposal.

Councillor David Fowles - 1:42:23

I was just going to say that to me, the way Councillor Judd's phrased it in terms of, this is atypical of...

Is that the right word? It's typical of a Cotswold village, but particularly noticeable in Chedworth

because although there are lots of villages that are built on hillside,

Chedwyth literally is a series whether it's upper, middle or lower or one village.

It's in a valley and it's a key feature of this and I really felt walking up that lane.

And I know Chedwyth very well so I didn't have to drive all round it to find the site.

Key aspect of the lane are those, what I described as those fields which are like punctuate the occasional house.

and if a house was put at that end it would just butt up to the house that's next one along

and then you've got Gatt and another house that just would look out of context.

Can I come onto my comments?

Yes, I have a question.

Councillor David Fowles - 1:43:19

My comments are that we had a long conversation and again it's been discussed today about the hedge

and I don't agree with the comment that's been made about the hedge being there

as somehow to sort of hide the site and took on board what the applicant said

that he was in the process of cutting that hedge down anyway. So to me the hedge isn't

a problem and to be blunt neither is the garage because the Cotswolds is littered with old

garages, workshops, it looked kind of like a workshop to me. I haven't got a problem

with that, it's part of what is there at the moment. The thing that really did it for me

is that the discussion seems to be about taking down, as you described the balance, taking

down the garage and putting effectively an underground house with a grass roof there.

That seems to me to be accepting the fact that previous applications had failed to put

a dwelling on there. So let's put a house on there that you can't see so that we retain

the landscape. It seems to me to be an acceptance therefore that the landscape and the gap is

important to the community. That's why I would support Julia's recommendation 100%.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:44:27

Councillor David Fowles - 1:44:29

Councillor van thanks can we please go to page 155 conclusion and planning

balance and what I what I was intending to ask and what I'm asking now which has

already started some consideration which is that the planning reasons for

rejecting the planning officers proposed advice to consent to this.

Councillor Michael Vann - 1:45:08

And so, at level one, the advice is that it's not considered to be material, whether or

not the application site is outside the settlement of Chetworth.

Although I must confess I pretty strongly disagree.

So we've got to move on to 11 .2.

But I wouldn't.

Okay, sorry to chop and change, but 11 .1.

Having heard all you've heard this afternoon, do you still think the application site is

outside the settlement of Chetworth?

For the purpose of DS3, yes, but I don't think it's in an unsustainable location.

Officer - 1:45:55

Just because for the purpose of DS3 we're talking about having new housing there rather

than what provides the context of the village.

It's a valuable open source.

There's no space in the village in that context, but not in the context of infilling the space

for housing, if that makes sense.

We're looking at almost in two different streams of what makes Chedworth as a village and an area.

The conservation area spreads over the fields and if we were looking at housing we wouldn't be saying it was in the settlement for the purpose of DS3 in a field 100 metres away.

So it's the same kind of rationale.

For 11 .1 I hear all you say. Can we please move on to 11 .2?

Councillor Michael Vann - 1:46:41

We are talking about the nitty -gritty which we need to talk about if we are going to disagree

with your advice.

It is considered that there is potential for a property on the site.

Councillor Michael Vann - 1:47:07

There is also potential for not having a property on the site because it's part of a long -established

part of a village which has a good view.

I saw it this morning.

It didn't fuss me, it was a hedge.

I just knew it had been put there to interrupt my having a look at it.

I could see the view perfectly well.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:47:38

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:47:41

Did you want a response to that? Or were you just leaving your comment as it is?

We are on comments, not questions.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:47:50

We have two questions.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:47:52

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:47:54

We had a proposal which we are debating.

Okay, so I think we've heard what you said, Councillor van and I think that will stand as a comment. We all have heard it.

Councillor Coleman

Yes, thank you chair. I think that little exchange explains why planning advisory service

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:48:12

suggested quite strongly to me during their visit and indeed I think in discussions when I went on a training course they hadn't heard of a

Planning Committee before I think where you have a split between

between questions and comments, they understand the process to be questions followed by debate.

The advantage of debate is that one can speak for, against or to the motion and we know

where we are.

And our officers know they can leave it to us to a large degree.

And the reason I put my hand up, having gone on a site visit and thought about it quite

hard is that I cannot see that an acceptable building suitably underground with suitable

access can be achieved without being very difficult to see indeed and without the removal

of the garage and without shed and without the removal or rather a condition that a hedgerow

can be maintained. But I believe we can achieve those conditions because the officers have

indicated those are the sort of requirements that they would need to see if we were going to get

a positive planning balance. In other words, we'd have to see that the House did not obstruct

anybody's view who already lives there, was not prominent to people walking past, and they would

have a better view because nobody in their right mind spends half a fortune

as one normally has to do to do anything in Cheddworth and then block their own

view of the north of the valley. So it's kind of human guarantee that in two

stages first of all the applicant knows they've got to build it almost out of

sight, take away the shed, plant a little orchard if that's appropriate, whatever

our officers want really although they're too polite and modest to say so

And in return, we get one more property built and everyone helps when you've got to build

a thousand a year.

Thank you for that comment.

Anyone else got a comment?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:50:16

We have draught refusal reasons which we'll read out.

So we're going to move on to the vote.

We have draught refusal reasons which Harrison is going to read out to us.

Sorry, I apologise.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:50:32

Amy is going to read them out to us. These are only draught currently so I

Officer - 1:50:37

would possibly amend a little bit based on the comments. So the

conservation area one along the lines of the application site is located within

the Chedworth conservation area where in the local planning authority is

statually obliged to pay special attention to the desirability of

preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the area. The site

provides a valuable open space providing a link between the village and

agricultural land.

This reinforces the pattern of development of the village,

and I'll put a note about it being on more on one side

and less on the other, and agricultural nature

of the village.

It is considered to contribute positively

to the significance of the conservation area.

The provision of a dwelling house with associated domestic

paraphernalia would materially alter the character

and appearance of the open space,

thereby resulting in harm to the Chedworth Conservation

Area, an asset of particular importance.

It is considered that this harm could not be successfully minimised or mitigated against,

such that the level of harm would be outweighed by the public benefits associated with the

provision of a dwelling house.

The proposed development is therefore considered contrary to the requirements of the Cotswold

District Local Plan Policies EN2, EN10 and EN11 and Chapters 2, 12 and 16 of the MPPF.

And then the next one would be on the national landscape.

So the application site is located within the Cotswolds national landscape, where the

local planning authority is tactically required to have regard for the purpose of conserving

and enhancing the national beauty of the landscape.

The site provides a valuable open space between the village and surrounding agricultural landscape,

reinforcing the rural nature of the village.

This area itself contributes positively to the character and appearance of the Cotswold

National Landscape.

The principle of construction of a dwelling house on this site with associated domestic

paraphernalia is considered to result in detrimental impact on the character and appearance of

the site.

A design may be put forward which would result in the site remaining open.

However, this would still result in the site no longer forming an integral part of the countryside within the village.

As such, the proposal would fail to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the designated landscape,

contrary to Section 85A1 of the Countryside Rights of Way Act, blah, blah, blah.

I'm not going to read out the whole thing.

Local Plan Policies, EM1, EM2, EM4, EM5, and Paragraphs 187 and 189 of the MPF, and the Cotswold Landscape Management Plan.

I'm hoping that that hopefully that covers concerns and this is anything

that people particularly want to be I was going to add definitely in the

conservation area one maybe less so but probably note it in the natural

landscape about having the development on the one side and being more sparse on

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:53:17

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:53:20

the lower side. Has everybody taken that on board to the extent that they feel

prepared to vote? I know obviously as it's Councillor Judd's recommendation

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:53:28

are you happy that's captured everything that your proposal wants to cover? I am

Councillor Julia Judd - 1:53:33

so impressed that Amy put that together in about two minutes or so but you

definitely got the gist of what I was trying to say is basically it's

the payoff doesn't do it for me.

Not without, you know, we would need to see

a lot more detail for me to be comfortable

about voting to approve anything on this side.

For all those reasons that you've just went through,

you don't need to do it again.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:53:57

Councillor Julia Judd - 1:53:58

Councillor Coleman, did you want to say something

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:54:00

about what Amy has suggested?

Chair, I don't think I made it clear

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:54:06

that I was actually speaking against the proposal

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:54:08

to refuse and if it fails then I would propose that we accept the officer's recommendation

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:54:17

at all. Okay, so would we need to look, do we need to get a seconder for Councillor Coleman's

first or should we go to the vote first? I don't know. So yeah, Councillor Coleman has

put forward a counter proposal but I think that's held in reserve. Great, okay. We would

need a seconder for that. We would need a seconder but shall we go to the vote?

Yeah we'll see what we're voting on Councillor Judd's proposal. Yeah we're voting on

Councillor Judd's proposal if that fails we'll move forward to Councillor Coleman's.

Is that the correct way to proceed? No I'm just asking if that's legally correct

or whether we need to have a seconder for Councillor Coleman's proposal at this

stage? I think not. So we'll go forward to the vote. Okay. Which is to refuse the

permission principle. Okay.

Okay, so that's refused, so we don't need to look for a second of a Councillor Coleman's

proposal. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Amy. And thank you very much, Justin,

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:55:43

for your contributions.

Does anybody feel the need for another comfort break

at this junk chat before we move on to the TPOs?

We will crack on.

So we are now...

Do we need to...

We need two seconds just to change over.

We need two seconds just to change over

for the next agenda item.

Sorry?

It's not a measure, four different ones.

Four different ones.

Yes, nevermind, it doesn't matter.

So item 10 is looking at the TPO.

Quite please.

Council Fowles.

Council Fowles, thank you very much.

So agenda item 10 is,

I'm going to have to introduce a naughty chair, I can see.

But there we are.

Councillor 10, Councillor, agenda item 10 is

brought before us because it's a tree

which is on council -owned land.

And the application is for a London plane

to reduce it back to previous pruning points

and crown them by 10 % at the Abbey grounds in Sire and Sester.

The case officer is Jordan Hawes, the ward off member is Councillor Mark Harris and the

recommendation is to permit these works.

We will have a short pause.

Thank you.

We will move on to the officer's presentation if you are ready.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:58:12

Officer - 1:58:22

The application is before the committee today because it relates to a council owned plane

tree within the Abbey grounds Park in Sire ancestor which is protected by a tree protection

order.

This shows the location of the tree outlined in red.

There's an oldish photo when it didn't have any leaves on it.

These are some more recent photos of the tree.

The proposals are for a programme of work to prune the tree back to its previous pruning

points and to reduce its crown by 10%.

That's to be repeated every three years.

Part of an ongoing maintenance of the tree to ensure it poses no risk to the public and

to limit any potential damage to property either directly or through

subsidence. The works are considered not to harm the tree and to conserve its

amenity contribution that it currently makes. That's quite a simple one. Thank

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:59:43

you very much. Councillor Harris, who's the Wood member, isn't here. Do we have

any questions on this application? Thank you chair. This

Officer - 1:59:54

trees before been before up this committee and its predecessors more

times than I've had at dinners I was gonna say. I serious question is when we

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:00:04

refer to crown reduction I've got a vague idea that that's reducing cutting

bits off it. What does crown raise mean can I be reminded?

I'm lifting it from the bottom effectively.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:00:20

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:00:21

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:00:27

And I got just a follow -up question this tree is incredibly close to long

established buildings is there no long -term risk to those buildings as

long as that tree lives. That's sort of why we have to every periodic every

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:00:41

three years they cut it back to as Jordan mentioned prevent subsidence from

the roots growing or prevent branch overhang so that is why it needs

periodic cutting or change so but no assuming we do that as we continue to do

no there's no risk well that's that's the intention there's no risk.

Councillor Fowles.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:01:02

Councillor David Fowles - 2:01:04

I understand exactly why it's been brought to us, but I know it's one tree, but do we monitor all the trees at that end of the Abbey grounds?

Because obviously there are some very substantial trees. This one happens to be, as Councillor Coleman said, very near a series of houses.

but it's part of an ongoing programme to maintain the very important woods in

Abbey grounds is it just to reassure me yes I couldn't single this tree out for

special treatment I think this one is singled out because of its proximity to

the neighbouring dwellings we own hundreds of trees across the sort of

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:01:37

districts and I know our team manages it we can't because you submitted it but

yes you know I I don't know the extent of the ownership in the Abbey grounds

but this one is singled out because of its proximity to neighbouring properties.

Okay.

Nick Bridges.

Councillor Bridges.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:01:54

My concern really is for the routes. Do we ever sort of look at routes and think

Councillor Nick Bridges - 2:02:00

these are getting too big therefore it's dangerous to those?

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:02:13

route subsidence can be a risk that's back in parts but we're here is to

effectively manage that is to prevent the subsidence or impacting the path of

the properties across them the way so I mean it's something that is considered

Jess and yeah if there are no further questions we'll move on to comment would

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:02:31

a debate as Councillor Kettleman prefers.

Councillor Brasington.

I oppose the acceptance of the recommendation.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Judd.

I respect it.

Councillor Fouts, are you going to say the same thing?

Yeah, I just want to make a comment if I may.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:02:45

Yes, feel free.

Councillor David Fowles - 2:02:47

Not least, because I'm delighted to say

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:02:51

Councillor David Fowles - 2:02:52

I'm a newly qualified town guide in Sarens sister.

I thought you were going to say you're on a bet

that you speak on FBI.

No, no, that's what I'm called for after.

I was so nice about you earlier.

I just want to say that for those colleagues who don't necessarily know this end of the

park, I mean obviously those houses, Lake Road, etc., were all put in in the 60s and

the trees predate that because they were part of the historic landscape of the town and

they provide a very important buffer really to those new houses which are a little bit

newer 60s houses.

So a little bit incongruous when you think just to the right of them,

there's the Norman Arch, which was built in the 16th century.

So before that, 11th century.

So I think it's great that we're keeping an eye on these trees

and long may they continue.

The other thing is it does flood around there,

so there's no risk of it drying out on the roots, etc.,

which sometimes happens because none of us really know what's going on

with injuries.

We rely totally on the experts to guide us on that.

So, but it is a very big tree near a house.

I have to agree with it, Councillor Coleman on that,

but let's hope we can keep it going.

Yes, we give thanks to our tree officers

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:04:09

for taking that responsibility upon themselves

with their expertise.

So now we're gonna move to the vote.

If there's no other comments,

to accept the officer's recommendation to prune this tree.

Councillor David Fowles - 2:04:23

So that recommendation is unanimous.

And then we have a little change of press now.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:05:21

We're getting more pauses than usual between our officers' handover, A, because we've

so many different offices today and B because they're trying out a new system

so if you could just bear with us.

Councillor David Fowles - 2:05:33

Thank you, Justin.

Could you give us your update?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:06:46

Thank you, Chair.

11 25/00002 - Tree Preservation Order - Mill Close, Blockley

Officer - 2:06:52

I don't have anything further to add to my report, but as always to assist members, I

will summarise the situation and then take any questions.

So members today are being asked to consider a tree preservation order made to protect

a mature beech tree and a mature ash tree growing in the garden of five mill clothes

in Blockley.

So you are being asked to consider whether to confirm the TPO, in other words, make it

permanent, confirm the TPO subject to modification, which in this case would be the removal of

one of the trees, or to not confirm the TPO.

My recommendation is that the TPO is confirmed as made.

This is a site plan.

The two trees subject to the CPO are T1, mature beech tree, T2, mature ash tree.

Five mil close is located in Blockley conservation area.

Most trees in conservation area are afforded protection similar to that as if they were

protected by a TPO.

The difference is the provision of the Town and Country Planning Act requires anyone wanting

to undertake works on most trees in the conservation area to submit a notice prior to undertaking

those works. The purpose of the notice is to give the council a maximum of six weeks

to decide whether or to object to the works by making a TPO, not object to the works and

inform the applicant with a no objection decision or let the six weeks period lapse and then

the applicant can get on with the proposed works as stated on the notice. So on the 9th

During this year the council received a notice to fell the beech tree and the ash tree subject

to the CPO.

A copy of the notice is in Annex B of my report.

Following the seat of the notice I visited site to assess whether the trees are worthy

of a TPO.

Now when the council uses a TPO assessment which follows government guidance which states

that in considering whether trees should be protected by a TPO authorities are advised

to develop ways of assessing the amenity value of trees in a structured and consistent way.

The Cotswold District Council TPO assessment form is at annex C of my report.

To assess the amenity value of trees, the Council judges the public visibility of the

trees, the arboricultural qualities of the trees, the life expectancy and replaceability

of the trees and any impact of removal.

Let's have a look at some pictures of the trees.

The beech and ash trees are both prominent trees in the heart of the Blockley Conservation

Area.

They have a clear and obvious visibility from a number of vantage points around the village.

I estimate they're at least 20 metres tall and growing in an elevated position.

There is a picture of the two trees looking south from the village green.

The tree on the right is the ash tree.

The tree on the left is the copper beech tree.

That's looking west from the village green.

You can see both trees there in the background.

This is looking north from lower street, so this is from the south side of the village.

So the condition of the trees is, when I inspect it, I would say they're healthy or as expected.

There's no significant structural or physiological risk features apparent.

Both trees have good life expectancy, although they are mature, they show no signs or symptoms of ovum maturity or decline yet.

I'd estimate the trees are at least 100 years old, so replacing the benefits provided by these trees, if they are removed, is going to take a very long time indeed.

The impact of removal would be significantly detrimental to the conservation area.

Final slide looking at the entrance to Mill Close, that's T1, the beech tree.

So my assessment indicated that the beech and the ash trees were worthy of a TPO.

As such, on June 8, a TPO was made.

All interested parties were served with a copy of the TPO and what is called a Regulation

5 notice.

On that notice, the Council must state clearly the reasons for making the TPO, so I highlighted

them for you there.

The notice was submitted to Felvertrees.

These trees contribute significantly to public visual amenity and locality.

The removal of trees will degrade the conservation area.

The TPO ensures that the trees are fully considered in any future decisions that affect them.

So TPO takes effect immediately but it must be confirmed or otherwise within six months of being made.

Once the TPO is made there is a 28 -day statutory period consultation period

where people are allowed to submit comments of support or objection and the

council has a legal obligation to thoroughly consider objections or other

representations regarding TPO before it decides to confirm it or otherwise.

Within the four -week consultation period, the site owner submitted an objection.

The objection is in Annex F of my report.

The objection can be summarised as having three elements.

One, the ash tree has early symptoms of ash dieback.

The second element was the ash tree was causing problems to neighbouring telephone wires.

The third objection of the element was around general concerns about the size of the tree

and the potential for large limb loss and in particular a phenomenon known as summer branch drop.

Again, I've responded in detail to each of the elements of the objections in my report,

but I will go through them here for you now.

Firstly, the tree, in my opinion, is not displaying symptoms of ash dieback.

My inspection, I've been out twice, my inspection showed that the tree indicated it was healthy,

and I would describe the crown vitality and vigour as normal for a tree of this age.

There is minor amounts of dead wood and dieback, but this is to be expected, in my opinion, for a tree of this size.

I would normally refer to this as normal, background, dead wood and twigs.

If the tree does definitively become infected with ash dieback, appropriate remedial works could be applied for,

and it's highly likely we would grant consent for those works.

Ash dieback is a serious threat to ash trees across the country.

It is killing a lot of ash trees across the country,

so it's therefore, I feel, essential that any healthy ash trees are retained.

With regards to the second element, the telephone line interference,

an application has been made to prune the tree

and the application has been granted consent.

On the third point, concern about the size of the trees, limb loss and some of branch drop,

my response is why it is understandable that large trees can cause concerns,

they do provide, as my slides have shown, substantial benefits and the overall risk

they pose is extremely low. Statistically you are significantly more likely to be hospitalised

by a football or a wheelie bin than a falling branch.

It's out there.

That's not to say the issue should be ignored.

Looks like I understand the large trees do call concern,

so I'd just like to reiterate the point

that if a defect in the tree is spotted,

an application could be made,

and appropriate remedial works would be justified.

Summer branch drop is a very rare,

potentially hazardous phenomenon where large, mature trees

which shed substantial branches during the summer often without any visible signs of defect.

The phenomenon is not

fully understood. It is extremely rare and the overall risk to the public is negligible.

I've been in the arboricultural sector for over 20 years and I have never had direct experience of it.

So I'd like to sum it then by reaffirming that both

Both the trees subject to this TPO provide substantial public amenity value in the conservation

area.

There are two prominent trees in a good or normal condition.

Benefits these trees provide outweigh perceived dis -benefits.

Confirming of the TPO does not prevent applications for future works being made.

However, not confirming the TPO will allow their removal and significantly degrade the

conservation area. Any questions?

Thank you very much. Actually, Councillor Turner is the member and she is here to speak.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:16:09

You have five minutes, Claire.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:16:16

Ward Member - 2:16:23

Thank you. So very often in our communities we lose lovely trees because they don't meet

the threshold for a TPO and they can be removed but I think the officer in his

report has clearly set out that these trees do meet the threshold and he's

also addressed the owners objections. I was a little surprised when I first saw

the application to fell these trees because in my view becoming a custodian

of these magnificent trees would have been a reason to purchase the

property in the first place. I was surprised it came in. I am sympathetic to the owners

concerns, but I really wanted to come here today to just add some weight to the issue

of the amenity value because they are right in the heart of the village where the church

and the shop and the cafe and the park converge. They are very visible and I think the assessment

that they are important and valued is correct as the officer has set it out.

And the other slightly more minor point is that Blocky Parish Council has a commitment

to biodiversity. They created an action plan a few years ago and while because ash trees in

particular are relatively softwood and they create features that are suitable for back roosting,

So it's just another minor point of why the biodiversity value shouldn't be overlooked either in this situation.

But I really just wanted to stress the immunity value and how visible and valued the trees are in the community.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Does anyone have questions? Councillor Fowles.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:18:09

Councillor David Fowles - 2:18:14

Yes, firstly can I congratulate Justin on his presentation. I learnt a lot about trees

today. From what you were saying, because it all got very technical for me, basically

if there's a concern about these trees being dangerous, the legislation is sufficiently

flexible to allow for the trees to be, if they need to be, with the ash die back or

the issue with the telegraph poles, et cetera,

that the owners can move fast enough, can they,

to if we support what your recommendation today,

and there was a problem,

the process is flexible enough and speedy enough

to allow for necessary works to be done to the tree

if the need arises.

I just want reassurance that that's the case.

Yeah, that's correct.

Officer - 2:19:08

the TPO doesn't prevent applications being made to undertake works there is

provisions within the legislation that if an emergency arises and by that I

mean if a limb snapped off or a whole limb suddenly died then they can

be removed within five days to submit some five -day notice and we will allow.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:19:33

Councillor Len Wilkins - 2:19:37

Councillor Wilkins. Page 185 looking at the item 4, it says to

remove one tree it increases the wind pressure. Is it really worth worrying about or is there

a real chance that it would have a major effect? And that would be dangerous?

The trees have grown very close together.

Officer - 2:19:57

I was almost tempted to make the preservation order as a group.

It is almost one canopy, so if you took out one tree and left the other, it would then

be exposed to the wind from that side that it has not been used to before.

Yes, so in answer to the question, it's not a good idea to take one of those trees out and leave

one side of the tree exposed to winds it's not been subject to before.

Any more questions?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:20:36

I just had something I wanted to ask.

Yeah, so on page 181

The object of the owner has said that the roots are causing damage to her porch.

Did you see any evidence of that?

Right at the top, page 181.

The roots have caused structural damage to the exterior porch.

Officer - 2:21:12

No evidence was submitted at all about any sort of structural damage.

If it was forthcoming, then we would consider it in any future application.

Okay, and then the other thing is about the summer branch drop.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:21:23

When it was mentioned, it sort of implied that the branch had fallen out of one of those trees.

I don't know whether that was accurate or not.

And if so, if a tree has had one episode of summer branch drop,

is it more likely to have another one?

Officer - 2:21:47

The applicant made reference to a historic branch loss.

I don't know what caused that branch loss.

Usually a tree will lose its branch because there are reasons for it.

It can be storm damaged.

Summer branch rock, as I explained it, it's a very, very rare thing.

It's not fully understood.

I have no direct experience of it.

All we know is it tends to occur in summer after an intense dry period and then an intense

belt of rain on some trees.

It's extraordinarily rare.

That's all I can say about it.

So just because it's happened once doesn't make it more likely to happen again essentially is what I'm asking.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:22:35

No.

Officer - 2:22:40

Thank you. Okay, if there are no more questions, can we move on to comments?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:22:43

Where's the draw?

Councillor Bratenton, I'll let you go first this time.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:22:49

I move that we confirm a TPO.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:22:52

Councillor Judd.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:22:58

I just wanted to quickly say that how lucky we are, sometimes you have to pinch yourself

Councillor Julia Judd - 2:23:04

and remind yourself of your good fortune, to live in a world where we have people like

Justin to look after some of the most beautiful things that we live with and they're protected.

So thank you Justin for what you do.

I doubt you ever hear that very often.

But it is so important.

I mean I don't know how that you said this these trees are very old you we we

treat trees as weeds at our peril and it's so nice to be here remember the

apple tree one last I don't know it's beginning of this year last year that

was also a heartwarming item in the planning committee but I support

Councillor Brasan's proposal to support the officer's recommendation.

Councillor Fowls. Thank you. Councillor Fowls and then Councillor Coleman.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:23:55

Councillor David Fowles - 2:23:59

Yes I just like to congratulate the ward member who's come all this way to

defend two really important trees and you know we were commenting on big

applications earlier, Councillor Jenkins, but these trees are important those of

that no Blockley and or credit to her for coming all this way and in future when I'm driving

through the Cotswolds when there's a wind I'm going to look out for flying wheelie bins and

footballs because they're more dangerous than trees okay thank you. Councillor Coleman did you

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:24:29

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:24:33

have a comment? Yes thank you chair just to say it's no doubt two trees stronger than one at

stopping the wind coming through.

And what a blessing it is.

I was once congratulated by my new neighbour

when I moved into a new house,

when I took down a horrible Leylandy.

What I didn't know, I was then gonna have a gale

blowing past my house,

bringing all the litter in off the street.

Even a Leylandy, it turns out, could do some good.

Anyway, I'm very pleased to have this.

And I'm reminded of that phrase,

looking at those two trees, stronger together.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:25:06

Thank you. If there are no further comments we'll move to the vote to accept the officer's

recommendation to protect these trees, both these trees with the TPO.

Councillor David Fowles - 2:25:23

We are at the end of our meeting.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:26:01

there is at the moment no site inspection briefing planned but if one

does happen on the 5th of November the people required are myself,

Councillor Bratinton, Councillor Coleman, Councillor Fowles and Councillor Judd.

So could you hold yourself ready for a SIB and Councillor Coleman.

Stopping you saying what you're going to say and our next meeting is on the 12th

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:26:28

of November preceded by licencing training is that still at 11 o 'clock?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:26:35

I'll have to cheque and let you know. At the moment as far as I'm aware there's

no licencing subcommittee on the 28th of October there are no matters to be

brought forward. We'll cheque about the training and confirm by email.

Councillor Judd.

Councillor Julia Judd - 2:26:52

If there is a site inspection briefing it depends where it is whether I can attend because I'm very excited to tell you that I have an

appointment with the new interim CEO to take her round my ward and that so takes precedence

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:27:07

Yeah, thank you. Absolutely. Well, maybe she falls council falls. Have you can't possibly have a similar appointment with the CEO

Councillor David Fowles - 2:27:32

That is one very satisfactory positive change.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:27:41

If there are no other comments, I am going to declare the meeting closed, and you can

all go and have a cup of tea.

Please provide any feedback/comments relating to the live webcast here. Any feedback submitted will be received to the Democratic Services team.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Cotswold District Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

There are currently no votes to display

Planning and Licensing Committee - Wednesday 8 October 2025, 2:00pm - Vote_events Tab - Cotswold District Council Webcasting

Planning and Licensing CommitteeWednesday, 8th October 2025 at 2:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:00:00

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:02:05

Councillor David Fowles - 0:02:14

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:02:18

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:02:30

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:02:36

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:02:41

Councillor Len Wilkins - 0:02:45

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:02:51

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:02:56

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:03:02

Officer - 0:03:07

Officer - 0:03:11

Officer - 0:03:16

Officer - 0:03:22

Officer - 0:03:26

Officer - 0:03:31

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:03:34

1 Apologies

Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:03:46

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:00

3 Declarations of Interest

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:07

4 Minutes

5 Chair's Announcements

6 Public questions

Public Speaker - 0:06:44

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:07:41

7 Member questions

Schedule of Applications

Officer - 0:09:34

8 25/01036/OUT - Land East Of Cotswold Business Village

Officer - 0:11:49

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:16:39

Town/Parish Council - 0:17:34

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:20:30

Town/Parish Council - 0:20:34

Objector - 0:24:01

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:24:06

Applicant/Agent - 0:24:09

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:27:12

Ward Member - 0:28:07

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:33:43

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:34:04

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:42:38

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:42:41

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:42:42

Officer - 0:43:51

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:46:31

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:46:38

Councillor David Fowles - 0:46:43

Officer - 0:47:52

Councillor David Fowles - 0:47:58

Officer - 0:48:19

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:48:38

Officer - 0:49:27

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:50:36

Officer - 0:51:13

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:51:37

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:51:43

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:54:17

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:54:28

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:54:38

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:54:50

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:54:56

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:55:00

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:55:15

Councillor David Fowles - 0:55:18

Planning and Licensing Committee
Wednesday, 8th October 2025 at 2:00pm