Planning and Licensing Committee - Wednesday 12 November 2025, 2:00pm - Cotswold District Council Webcasting

Planning and Licensing Committee
Wednesday, 12th November 2025 at 2:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Dilys Neill
  2. Councillor Dilys Neill
  3. Councillor Julia Judd
  4. Councillor Michael Vann
  5. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  6. Councillor Clare Turner
  7. Councillor David Fowles
  8. Councillor David Fowles
  9. Councillor Nick Bridges
  10. Councillor Dilys Neill
  11. Officer
  12. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  13. Officer
  14. Officer
  15. Councillor Dilys Neill
Share this agenda point
  1. Officer
  2. Councillor Dilys Neill
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Dilys Neill
Share this agenda point
  1. 03 - Minutes of meeting held on 08 October 2025 - APPROVE
    Status: In progress
  2. 03 - Minutes of meeting held on 08 October 2025 - APPROVE
    Status: Ended
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Dilys Neill
  2. Supporter
  3. Councillor Dilys Neill
  4. Supporter
  5. Applicant/Agent
  6. Councillor Dilys Neill
  7. Julia Gibson, Officer
  8. Councillor Dilys Neill
  9. Councillor Julia Judd
  10. Councillor Dilys Neill
  11. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  12. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  13. Councillor Dilys Neill
  14. Councillor Ray Brassington
  15. Councillor Dilys Neill
  16. Councillor David Fowles
  17. Councillor Dilys Neill
  18. Councillor Ray Brassington
  19. Councillor David Fowles
  20. Councillor David Fowles
  21. Officer
  22. Councillor David Fowles
  23. Councillor David Fowles
  24. Councillor David Fowles
  25. Councillor Dilys Neill
  26. Councillor David Fowles
  27. Officer
  28. Officer
  29. Councillor Dilys Neill
  30. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  31. Officer
  32. Officer
  33. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  34. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  35. Officer
  36. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  37. Councillor Dilys Neill
  38. Councillor Julia Judd
  39. Officer
  40. Councillor Julia Judd
  41. Officer
  42. Councillor Julia Judd
  43. Officer
  44. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  45. Councillor Julia Judd
  46. Councillor Dilys Neill
  47. Councillor Michael Vann
  48. Officer
  49. Councillor Dilys Neill
  50. Councillor Nick Bridges
  51. Officer
  52. Councillor Dilys Neill
  53. Councillor Dilys Neill
  54. Councillor David Fowles
  55. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  56. Councillor David Fowles
  57. Councillor Dilys Neill
  58. Councillor Nick Bridges
  59. Councillor Dilys Neill
  60. Councillor Dilys Neill
  61. Officer
  62. Councillor Dilys Neill
  63. Officer
  64. Councillor Dilys Neill
  65. Councillor Clare Turner
  66. Officer
  67. Councillor Dilys Neill
  68. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  69. Councillor Dilys Neill
  70. Councillor David Fowles
  71. Councillor Dilys Neill
  72. Councillor Dilys Neill
  73. Councillor Ray Brassington
  74. Councillor Dilys Neill
  75. Councillor Ray Brassington
  76. Councillor Dilys Neill
  77. Councillor Dilys Neill
  78. Councillor Dilys Neill
  79. Councillor Julia Judd
  80. Councillor Dilys Neill
  81. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  82. Councillor Dilys Neill
  83. Councillor David Fowles
  84. Councillor Dilys Neill
  85. Councillor Julia Judd
  86. Councillor Dilys Neill
  87. Councillor Michael Vann
  88. Councillor Dilys Neill
  89. Councillor Nick Bridges
  90. Councillor Dilys Neill
  91. Councillor David Fowles
  92. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  93. Councillor Dilys Neill
  94. 08 - 25/02458/FUL - Brook Close, Rodmarton - REFUSE
    Status: In progress
  95. 08 - 25/02458/FUL - Brook Close, Rodmarton - REFUSE
    Status: Ended
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:00:10
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:00:11
Good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of the planning committee of Cotswold District
Council. I would like to welcome all of you members of the public who are here. It is
very nice to see you and nice that you are taking an interest. Also, any members who
watching at home and I know there are a few who watch us on a regular basis. For
those members watching at home you will be able to see the way we vote because
we use an electronic voting system which will flash up and show you who's voted
in which way. If by any chance our electronic voting system fails we'll
resort to a show of hands but normally it works very well. Can I just remind
And everybody present, including myself, to switch off or silence your phone.
And members of the public, I think there are two of you who will be speaking today, a supporter
and the applicant.
The rest of you, can I ask you not to interrupt the proceedings in any way and not to talk
about it yourselves.
and also you're not allowed to talk to any of the committee members. So that's
the rules. So when the public speakers are invited to come forward you'll each
have three minutes to speak. My vice -chair, Councillor Judd, will
let you know when your time is up. So please structure
your what you have to say so that the most important things come first and I
will let you finish the sentence but I won't let you go on for another half a
minute after the three minutes is up. After that your ward member who's
Councillor McEwen who's brought this to Planning Committee is not here but he's
given a report which our Democratic Services Officer will read out. Following
that we had a site inspection briefing to look at the property and the village
and I will ask members who attended the site inspection briefing to give a brief
report on what they found and all this will take place after our case officer
Mr. Moody has done his presentation so I hope that's clear to all the members of
the public here. So now I'd like to ask the members of the panel to introduce
I'm Councillor Dillis Neal and I represent Stawan the Walled.
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:02:45
Hello I'm Councillor Julia Judd and I represent Ermin Ward.
Councillor Michael Vann - 0:02:55
Michael Fan, Fairford North.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:03:01
Yes, I'm Patrick Coleman, I'm the Councillor for Stratton in Sirencester.
Councillor Clare Turner - 0:03:10
Councillor Clareton representing Blockley Ward.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:03:14
Councillor Ray Brathington, Four Acres Ward of Sirencester.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:03:20
You just came up as Councillor David Farr.
Oh no.
Poor you.
Good afternoon everybody. I'm Councillor David Fowles. I represent the
Colm Valley Ward which runs from Fost Bridge right through the Colm Valley to
Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:03:38
Southrop. And I'm Councillor Nick Bridges in Baltimore which is where we are here.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:03:44
Thank you very much and can I ask the officers to introduce themselves please.
Officer - 0:03:53
Good afternoon, my name is Maureen Barnes and I am legal advisor to this committee.
Thank you.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:04:01
Good afternoon, Harrison Boley, head of planning services for Cotswold District Council.
Officer - 0:04:05
Andrew Moody, senior case officer.
Officer - 0:04:10
Ellen Ward, senior conservation and design officer at Cotswold District.

1 Apologies

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:16
Officer - 0:04:21
Thank you very much. Now do we have any apologies? We have apologies from
Councillor Ian Watson, Andrew McLean, Dara Corbs and Tristan Wilkinson and
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:35
Councillor Claire Turner is substituting for Councillor Andrew McLean. Thank you

2 Substitute Members

3 Declarations of Interest

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:45
very much. Are there any declarations of interests from members? No, great. Are there

4 Minutes

any declarations of interests from officers? No. Then can I ask for a review of the minutes
from our last meeting, which was held on the 8th of October. Does anyone have any comments
on the minutes. Would anyone like to propose that they're correct? Thank you
very much. I'll have Councillor Fowles proposing and Councillor Brussington
seconding. Can we go to a vote on the minutes? Thank you.
I think we're one short.
Perfect. Lovely. So that's seven in favour and one abstention. So those minutes are passed.
We move on to chairs' announcements.
First of all, has everybody had the opportunity to read the late pages?
There were a lot of late pages.
I think we had 32 to read.
We had them a couple of days ago, so everyone should have had the opportunity to read them.
Is that okay?
Thank you very much.

5 Chair's Announcements

It's coming into the festive season and I think we probably will have, it's been
traditional to have a Christmas lunch for the planners, when the planning committee
can meet with and engage and make merry with our planning officer colleagues and that will
sometime in January and Harrison is going to discuss with his team who would like to
come and where they would like to go and we will find a date and let you know that soon.
Also I heard that Harrison would like to mention something briefly after the live broadcasting
has stopped. Please don't, as soon as I have banged my gavel to let you know that the meeting
is finished, please don't rush off because Harrison would like to tell us something briefly.

6 Public questions

Right, now we move on to public questions. Are there any public questions? Great. We

7 Member questions

had a member question submitted by Councillor McLean, but he's not here, so we will defer

Schedule of Applications

that. A member question, sorry. So now we can move on to the schedule of applications.
There is just one item today so I will ask Councillor Moody to see if... are you ready
to go? I'll read out what the item is, yes. The application is for the demolition of existing
dwellings and outbuild and a replacement with a self -built dwelling
garage and outbuilding at Brookclothes in Rodmarton. The case officer is Andrew
Moody, the ward member is Councillor Mike McEwen and the
recommendation is to refuse. So sorry about that Mr. Moody would you like to
present the case for us? Thank you chair.
Officer - 0:08:32
There we go. Right thank you. So the application site is located on the

8 25/02458/FUL - Brook Close, Rodmarton

the eastern outskirts of Rottmartin on the northern side of the lane going through the
village.
So next up on the presentation is the proposed block plan.
The proposed replacement dwelling and garage are the grey shaded blocks towards the centre
left of the site.
The existing buildings are those in red.
It's an aerial photograph of the site shown in context with the village.
And for the benefit of Counstiff Fowles, I've done it not in red for you.
So it's in green for you on that photograph.
Also, surely for the benefit of other people who are...
I'm colour blind.
Thank you.
I think other people are as well.
I'm not the only person in England.
Can we see that, Counstiff Fowles?
Thank you.
So this is the survey drawings of the existing property.
The question asked during the site inspection briefing last week was the height of the property.
It measured it off at 6 .8 metres.
This is the proposed replacement dwelling with accommodation on three floors including in the roof space.
In comparison, the maximum ridge height there is 9 .395 square metres.
So that's just over nearly 2 .6 metres higher.
That's the east and north elevation of property.
So that's from the side and rear.
This is the out building proposed which include office storage space within the first floor
of the property.
The ridge height of that is 6 .38 metres.
So that's 42 centimetres lower than the maximum ridge height of the existing dwelling at the
site. Floor plans, existing property has three bedrooms. This is the proposed floor plans
in front of you, so there's five bedrooms in the new dwelling. And that's the accommodation
and the roof space storage primarily, as well as the roof plan. Comparative street view,
so at the top of the screen is the existing property, aligned in red, proposed dwelling
down below in light blue. And some photographs. So this is the view towards
the front elevation facing towards the highway and the western facing side
elevation. That's from the opposite angle and that's the rear extension referred
to in the report built in the 1970s. When viewed from the other
you can see it's now like a double pile extension at the rear there. As pointed
out to members on site you can see the difference in stone coloration showing
where the original property was before the extension upwards on the front of
the property and then the extension at the rear. That's the siting for the
proposed outbuilding towards the north western corner of the plot. As the
entrance members can see there is a good degree of screening although some of the
within the site would have to be removed to accommodate the site for the new
dwelling. And then also within the reports reference made to the arts and
crafts properties at Little Tarleton which is to the northeast of the site so
it's got some photographs of those for you to have a look at just to see the
character. As you would have heard, Eleanor Ward the senior design conservation
design officer is here today to answer any questions you have regarding design
or the impact on the setting of conservation area, as well as
the group value of the application site
with these properties.
That's the final photograph in the presentation.
So the application site property is the one in the background
there to the right -hand side of, I think it's number five,
Tarleton.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:12:48
Thank you very much. Could I now invite the public speakers to come forward, the supporter
candidate Fifersham and the applicant Emily Olsen. Thank you very much.
So can I remind you again, you've got three minutes and we will tell you in the three
minutes.
You can finish your sentence but you can't carry on much longer.
So can I ask Mrs. Fefisham to speak first?
Supporter - 0:13:40
I have lived in Rodmartin, specifically the area
known as Little Toulton for seven years. I was genuinely pleased to hear the proposals
for Brook Close.
I believe this new family home represents a significant
improvement on the existing house, for its high quality well -considered
appearance to how it will function as a modern family home. Quite simply, it is the sort
of development our village should rejoice in.
I am especially pleased to see the strong emphasis on sustainability. These are exactly
the kind of measures that show how our village can progress responsibly while maintaining
its distinctive heritage and character. I am also delighted to see that the new plans
afford for a more suitably proportioned property within the generous mature gardens. This will
end very positively to the overall feel and will enhance and reveal their true value.
As a resident of Little Tarleton, I would like to directly address a point raised in
the Officer's Report regarding our so -called group value with Brook Close. With respect,
this suggestion is simply not correct. Little Tarleton has always been a small, well -defined
group of seven cottages built together by Ernest Barnsley. They are formally recognised
in historic listings as being a single cohesive set that share the same distinctive arts and
craft design, materials and character. It is at best tenuous to suggest that Brooklow
shares our group value. To do so risks diminishing the distinct architectural quality of Barnsley's
work. Brooklow shares neither their unique value nor their setting. It sits apart, enclosed
within its own defined plot, separated by clear physical and visual boundaries. By contrast,
the Barnsley cottages form an open visually connected and self -contained hamlet. We cannot
see Brookclothes from our homes, the only glimpse is of the rear of the property from a small vantage
point on the road, but even from here the proposed new house being aesthetically far more compelling
will present a marked visual improvement. With our wonderful school and village hall at its heart,
I've long considered Roddenmartin to be a forward -thinking close -knit community.
However, despite these strengths, only two households in our village have children of
primary school age and, alarmingly, the population is now largely made up of those in or approaching
retirement.
Certainly, my children are the exception in Little Tarleton.
More than ever, it is vital that we can attract and retain younger generations to secure the
lifeblood of this much -cherished community, so it is heartening to see a family with a
and long -standing connexion to the village,
investing their care and attention
so diligently to this project.
I wholeheartedly support this application.
This beautiful, sustainable, and sensitively designed home
promises to be a real asset to our village
and one that can only enhance the site
and wider surroundings.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:16:41
That was very good timing.
Bang on the three minutes, well done.
And now Mrs. Olsen, if you would like to speak.
Supporter - 0:16:48
Applicant/Agent - 0:16:57
So thank you for the opportunity to talk about the family home that we hope to build.
I was born in this house and our children are the fifth generation of our family to be in Rob Martin, hence our commitment to the project.
It is for them and their children continuing our connexion with the village.
One of the main concerns raised by the Conservation Officer is the loss of the existing house.
The house is neither listed nor in the Conservation Area and it is not a viable modern family
home with one bathroom, poor lighting insulation, no office or utility space.
The washing machine is in an outdoor shed and we have an oil -fired boiler.
As you will have seen from the supplementary pack, it was originally a very small cottage
but has been extended three times, including a whole new first floor, and is now 150 % bigger
than it was. The garden is also several times larger. That house, built by my great -grandfather,
has gone. At Pre -Out, we discussed options to keep the building. The Planning Officer
has agreed in principle to a new house side by side with the existing. Having done that
work, we realised it was neither sustainable nor appropriate. The Conservation Officer
asserts that the house we proposed would harm the conservation area and group of listed
buildings at Little Tarleton. Neither the current nor proposed house can be seen
from the conservation area. The listed house is more than a hundred, the nearest
listed house is more than 80 metres away and the next 175 and there is only a
short stretch of road where you can see Brookclose in conjunction with that
nearest house across two gardens, a hedge, a field and at over 130 metres. The only
part of that house that one may see through the gaps is the 1976 upstairs
rear extension. You've seen the images that show our proposal within the
village context. It's in keeping and it's appropriate and most people passing through
the village would not likely notice it. But if they were to, they would see a house in
natural stone in the style of the Cotswold vernacular.
Our architect, Hugh Petter of Adam Architecture, is a long -standing member and past chair of
the Art Workers Guild, the cradle of the arts and crafts movement. Adam is an internationally
renowned practise specialising in traditional architecture. We came to Hugh because of his
skill at combining sensitive traditional design with modern requirements and our brief to
was to design a family home that fits into the village.
His design is appropriately simple, restrained, well proportioned and beautiful.
We hired leaving landscape architects Colvin and Mogridge, based locally,
to do a complementary design increasing biodiversity and native species.
Sustainability is very important to us and Hughes' design achieves the highest standard of energy efficiency,
far exceeding that which any scheme adapting in this existing building could achieve.
The materials will be recycled on site, we'll instal an all -electric system, air source, heat pump,
MBHR and suds and the carbon payback period is potentially as little as 16 years.
We have shared all of this with our neighbours and the parish council.
We have not had a single objection.
We've received seven letters of support referencing high quality design, enhancement to the village,
exemplary design, thoughtfully designed and recognising it as an asset to the village.
We've worked really hard to get this right for the village and for our family and hope
you can support our proposals for what we know is a beautiful and sustainable
asset to our village.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:20:15
Now Mrs. Gibson can you read out Councillor McGlashan's name?
Thank you very much.
Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:20:33
Chair, members of the committee, thank you for allowing this statement to be read on
my behalf. I requested that this application be brought before the committee because I
believe it represents a finely balanced case where the key planning considerations deserve
to be weighed openly by members rather than determined under delegated powers. The officer
report and the heritage team's assessment have been thorough and professionally prepared
and I want to make clear that my call -in should not be seen as any criticism of their work.
I fully recognise that the recommendation for refusal reflects the professional view
that the existing dwelling is considered a non -designated heritage asset. However, there
is also strong planning arguments on the other side of the balance, which in my view merit
the committee's consideration. Firstly, the existing house has been heavily altered over
time, including extensions and the addition of an upper storey, so that it now bears little
resemblance to its original design. While it is attributed to Alfred Powell, he is best
known for his decorative work within the arts and crafts movement, rather than as a prolific
architect and the building's architectural integrity has been
significantly eroded. The house is hardly visible from any public vantage points
and therefore makes only a limited contribution to the local character.
Secondly, the proposed replacement dwelling is of a high design quality. It
uses local materials and a form that sits comfortably on the edge of the
village. It includes landscaping and biodiversity enhancements that will
improve the immediate setting. Thirdly, the scheme delivers clear sustainability benefits,
replacing an oil -fired heating system with an air -source heat pump, and providing a much
higher standard of energy performance. While there is inevitably an embodied carbon cost
from new construction, the use of low -carbon materials and modern methods of construction
can substantially reduce this and the removal of an oil -based system represents
a meaningful climate gain consistent with the council's climate emergency
strategy. Finally, there has been no local opposition to the proposal. On the
contrary, there have been multiple letters of support from local residents
recognising that this is a family home, not a speculative development. That level
of community backing is unusual for a replacement dwelling and should carry
some weight. In summary, Chair and members, this application represents a genuine
planning balance between heritage protection on one side and design quality,
sustainability and community support on the other. I believe it is right that
this decision is taken transparently by elected members weighing those
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:23:28
considerations in full. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. So last
week we had a site inspection briefing and I'd like to ask the members who
attended the site inspection briefing for their opinion. Councillor Judge would
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:23:42
you like to kick us off? Thank you chair. Yes well what a lovely lovely spot and
we all know what a lovely village Rodmartin is. The first thing that struck
me was the size of the garden in relation to the size of the property.
it's a pretty house. It's a pretty house and an enormous garden for it's
unusually large garden. Funny enough the building I particularly liked was
the out building out the back which I just thought was authentic arts and
crafts and didn't seem to have been touched but apart from that it wasn't
raining it was quite a nice day it was leafy but yes great thank you chair
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:24:31
Councillor Coleman
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:24:38
yes thank you chair yes I agree the visit persuaded me that it was
worthwhile because there is clearly a significant number of issues to be
addressed. I agree with the comments made about the particular unique loveliness
of the area and that precious asset of a village primary school. Whether we will
ever see many more children living in Robert Martin seems a little unlikely.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:25:17
How did that happen?
It does seem to me to be something of a challenge to build quite such a large building on a
plot that was that big and requiring a demolition of a relatively historic building.
And in particular, the building that exists, and this is my final point, does present a
example of what is made by the narrative that a building can convey if you can see the different
stages of its development in the slightly different changes in the blockwork and building on the walls
and generally speaking that is an asset to a build or that that enhances an old building's value.
I'm not entirely persuaded of that issue in this particular case because they are quite faint
and the building isn't one of the best examples but it does have some arts and
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:26:19
crafts examples within it which will initially this be lost. Thank you very
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:26:24
much. Councillor Breslington. Thank you chair. Yes the first thing that struck me was
the size of a garden, very large. The front facade is quite attractive and
and it's got a very ornate porch to it.
The rear is not so attractive
with a mish and mash of materials.
The current house is not seen to any significant degree
from Little Tarleton, that's to the east.
To the other side, close to the boundary is the house
and their views at the moment are through trees.
If this application is approved,
they will now see a three -bay garage with an office above
at a height of 6 .38 metres which is quite significant. Thank you. Thank you
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:27:06
Councillor David Fowles - 0:27:10
very much Councillor Fowles. I don't want to repeat what my colleagues have already
said but I too was struck by the size of the garden and the house. What
particularly struck me was in the officer's report and in the
presentations that have just been given about the changes that have taken place
in terms of raising the roof a number of years ago and the 70s extension on the back.
And I felt that the particular raising of the roof that that was had been very sympathetically done
and had blended in very very nicely with the overall dwelling.
I particularly was particularly struck by the chimney and the tapered nature of the chimney
and you and I, Chairman, with the only two members who after the site meeting
walk down to Little Tarleton and you can see it from Little Tarleton and it
is quite significant and let's remember that we're looking at it at a time of
year where there's still quite a lot of foliage there. I've noticed in my own
garden suddenly the leaves have gone but it was very, it did nestle in you would
be hard pushed to see the existing house. I share the concerns that Councillor
Braslington had about the size and location of the garage and very surprised
that the neighbours to that one to the east haven't made any comments about
that. However weighing all that up and that's not what we saw on the site visit
to replace all of that with a modern family home in the Cotswold
vernacular I don't question that the detail in the architecture and so on I
I just felt that it seems to me that it would be if there has been properly
explored again I'll ask the case officer ways of extending the existing property
because there are things such as one bathroom and an oil -fired central
heating system and all of those things which are not part of contemporary
modern living so I want to listen to the debate on balance when I came away I
accept all the arguments that have been put fifth generation you don't knock
down a fifth generation family -owned without thinking about it very very
carefully and that's weighed very heavily on me since last week so looking
forward to the debate but took you concerned about the garage thank you
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:29:35
very much so I also was on the site inspection briefing as councillor
Felsus meant mentioned so there are various factors which the conservation
officer has asked us to consider and also our planning officer, case officer. So first
is the house itself and the value that it has as a non -designated heritage asset and
clearly that's something we're going to discuss in the debate. You can, clearly it's significantly
modified. It's not like the other buildings in Little Tarlton which still very much retain
their arts and crafts style but you can still see the outline of the original buildings
and you can begin to read the history of the house itself.
Secondly, we were to look at the setting of the house
and how it related to the rest of the village in general
and to the cottages at Little Toulton in particular.
Our conservation officer has mentioned the idea
of a hierarchy within the village,
i .e. some buildings are of humble origin,
and some buildings are much more grand.
Obviously, there's a lot of manor in the village
and other big houses in the village.
This has always traditionally been
one of the smaller houses.
So there's that to consider,
how does the hierarchy of the houses around
reflect the history of the village?
And then she talked about the kinetic importance,
not just in the setting of listed buildings,
not just can you actually see the building
from any listed buildings,
but how you experience it, the new build,
as you approach from past the listed buildings
and as you come into the village of Rudmarton
or going out in the opposite direction,
how would the new building be appreciated
going from the village of Rudmarton
out towards Little Tartan
with this new rather large building on the site.
So those were all things that I thought we should consider.
And also, I will raise a question later on
about whether this is a good design for this site,
or whether, obviously, we have to look at the design that's
in front of us, or whether a design that
might be more sympathetic to the smaller houses in Little Tarleton
would be appropriate.
But I'll raise that as a question later.
Thank you.
Now, we'll move on to questions.
So, the way this, for those of you who are members of the public, the way this works
is that we, we, board members will ask questions as they see appropriate and they will be answered
by our officers, the case officer and we have our conservation officer here.
And then after that we'll have a section which we will call debate where we can raise comments
and then if any further questions arise out of the comments, they can also be answered.
So that's how it will go. Right. So I think Councillor Brasington was the first then.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:32:34
Thank you chair. I can see from the drawings that the the new proposed house is going to be just over
10 .8 metres tall, but I can't quite read what the
existing house is.
I think I need a magnifying glass to read on the textbook.
Can you tell me what the existing house is? Thank you chair. I've mentioned that in my introduction. The existing house is 6 .8.
6 .8. Yeah, the ridge height of the proposed dwelling is 9 .395, so that's 2 .595 metres higher.
The figure you referred to over 10 metres is the maximum height of the chimney of the proposed dwelling.
And the next question is, what is the increase in the floor space between the existing and the proposed?
I'm going on the ground floor area here.
I haven't done volume calculations or anything of that nature.
I know this is a question raised by members last week.
So the maximum dimensions looking at the ground floor property are 14 .501 metres by 16 .765.
as you will see there's inset areas on the two side elevations but then there's
also bay windows to the front and the rear and the side but if you multiply
fourteen point five zero one by sixteen point seven six five you get to
approximately two hundred and forty three square metres with regards to the
existing property which I think I have scanned in I'm not sure actually if I
thought this in the presentation I didn't anyway but the ground floor area
of that property being bearing in mind it's pretty much an L shape is just over
seventy seven point one square metres so seventy seven point one as opposed to
around 240. Right okay final question at the moment paragraph 1019 you say the
reasons for seeking a larger house of the family within the village is
recognised but don't say what that reason is.
Off the top of my head I'm not entirely sure what that is either but clearly as the
public speaker said there are concerns about the standard of the property, one bathroom
etc, three bedrooms and poor insulation so their intentions I presume are therefore to
provide a more comfortable quality of living for the family.
Thank you.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:35:11
I'm particularly keen to get my head round this issue
in terms of the non -designated heritage assets
and what weight we should attach to that.
So I'd really like to hear from the conservation officer
to understand what it is about this building,
setting and so on because there seems to be a difference of opinion from where we
are and where the applicant and the supporter was so I'd really like to get
Councillor David Fowles - 0:35:41
her input if I may before we then ask other questions. Thank you Councillor Fowles. I think it's
really important to think about the different considerations here we've
We've got a non -
Councillor Fowley's still got yours on.
Sorry.
Officer - 0:35:59
So with the application, there's two main aspects.
We've got a non -designated heritage asset, which is a very sort of low significance.
And then we've got the designated heritage assets, which are the conservation area and the listed buildings.
So in terms of weight, we should be giving more weight to those that are more significant, which are the designated ones.
so the conservation area and the setting of the listed building.
With non -designated heritage assets, we have in the MPPF,
it says we should look at those, understand their significance
and try and sustain or enhance that significance.
So that's what we should do in every application.
Paragraph 216 of the MPPF says that you should balance the harm
cause with the significance, but of course in an application sense there are more considerations
as you were saying, there are other material considerations that could be designed by diversity,
those sorts of things.
So we're looking at the significance of this as a non -designated heritage asset, which
is a low bar anyway, and I have established in my report that I consider it to be low
to moderate significance of a non -designated heritage asset.
And then we just need to make a balanced judgement as to whether the application proposals
would outweigh that harm in a balanced way.
So it could be you could decide that the climate and change mitigation put forward outweighs it.
Or the design of the house.
Being careful that you know you consider
that
we also have a duty to sustain and enhance the non -designated heritage asset as far as we possibly can.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:37:50
Yes, it sort of leads on neatly to that wonderful word, public benefit, because on the one hand
it's got, as you say, a low bar to protect this output, but once it's gone, it's gone.
And then the public benefit, and I'd like either some clarity from yourself or indeed
from Andrew about what we would define as the public benefit.
Because clearly, we're coming down on the basis
that it doesn't outweigh, public benefit doesn't outweigh.
But these
Councillor David Fowles - 0:38:27
Just public benefit, could I get a better understanding
from one of our officers on the public benefit?
It's really important.
It's really important to look
at the two different planning balances.
So the non -designated heritage asset,
we're not looking at public benefits.
We're looking at other material considerations.
With the designated heritage asset,
which is the setting of the conservation area
and the setting of the list of buildings,
we are looking at public benefit.
There's two different measurements
that we're looking at.
OK, thank you.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:39:16
So I wanted to ask a question about the location of the, well firstly the house and secondly
the garage because as Councillor Brassington pointed out, Andrew says, a very significant
increase in both the height and the floor plan over the existing dwelling and I thought
one of the most attractive parts of the garden and the setting
was the way it was set back on the site.
You had all the garden at the front.
And Andrew indicated when we were in the garden how far
forward by looking at the trees the new house would come.
And I wanted to know whether in discussion with the applicant,
that's from where I'm sitting, as far back as it felt
it could go.
And the second thing is the garage.
I mean, we were all a bit shocked about the garage.
I mean it's fine from the point of view of the house because you couldn't see it really, but the next door neighbours
I was really surprised with such a big site that it was pushed over as far as it was
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:40:16
Just interested to know whether there's been discussion about... So you want to know
about... so your question is
Councillor David Fowles - 0:40:21
Is is it in the right... is the house and the garage in the right location
in terms of the site, the size of the garden?
Officer - 0:40:33
There was two rounds of pre -application advice sought prior to the submission of this application.
I did not deal with the first one.
The case officer dealing with that left.
Eleanor Ward was consistent in being involved with both.
The advice that we gave at the second time around in terms of the demolition, building
of a new replacement dwelling, et cetera, is pretty consistent I would say with the
that officers have adopted now with the recommendation upon the application.
Officer - 0:41:09
So the proposal was for the dwelling in this location so it's been submitted
upon that basis so we expressed our concerns about the loss the total loss
of the non -decimated heritage asset. The advice given that pre -op stage raised
concerns about the design scale and massing of the proposed dwelling in terms of is this
in the right position within the plot.
Well the dwelling is sufficiently far enough away from any residential property.
It's not going to cause any impact of loss of amenity, et cetera.
On balance your officers haven't raised concerns in terms of the relationship of the garage
to the neighbouring property simply because the plans do show a hedgerow planted along
the boundary where there is currently wooden fence, tree planting.
If you're minded to overturn the recommendation and grant permission then clearly there would
be a landscaping condition and we could ascertain what would be appropriate tree
species to go in in the position because if you could just put the screen up
please the presentation. Thank you. There you can see there's three trees shown
between the garage and the boundary and the design of the garage storage
building is a home office etc is shown to have no window openings on that
renovation. Again if you were reminded to grant permission we would remove
permitted a development rights to that would prevent any new openings being put
in on that re -elevation of the of the out building.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:42:35
Councillor Coleman.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:42:40
Thank you chair. Could our conservation officer give us a bit more insight into
the proposed new building's design and insofar as there is anything to be said about it,
the very high, in my view, over six metres proposed new garage. I know it's difficult to make garages
attractive but I was a bit concerned looking at it myself, so does the officer agree with me is
the question, that one might be misled at first sight into thinking the proposed new building
in a few years time is an old building and only on getting closer would one see
the clues that tell us that it's a new building is that kind of impact which is
not uncommon these days something we seek to encourage discourage or have no
Officer - 0:43:39
view on. Councillor Coleman in looking at design I look at it obviously in the
widest sense which is not just the architectural design of the building so
looking at the site, the context, the scale, the mass.
And for this proposal, it is those elements
that I consider to be the key harmful ones in this context.
Architectural design can be more subjective.
The architects have taken references from the...
Officer - 0:44:12
Sorry, thank you.
That is part of looking at the context, that's the approach they've decided to take.
For me, a modern contemporary building in this location, particularly of this size, if that was considered,
would potentially cause more harm because the contrast potentially of the modern building
in this very historic context could increase our perception of it in the context.
It's really important to look at the site as an area between two designated heritage assets,
the conservation area setting and the setting of the group of listed buildings, the Little Tarleton.
I don't know if it's part of the design of them, but they were separated from the village by this short space.
The village grew originally in a hierarchical, traditional sense.
So this space between them and how it's treated is really important as well.
So we've got the small houses of Little Tarleton
and then the settlement edge buildings that are also relatively small.
So for me it's more to do with the scale and massing
and the overall status of the design that is presented rather than the architectural design itself.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:45:38
Yes, Chair, if I could ask a question of the relevant officer, which might have to be the Chief, I don't know.
We've had possibly the longest ever supplementary document, that's 33 pages in the blank back as well.
And whilst it's long, it's a good read because it's the first time I can remember this council being invited to address the issue of embodied carbon.
Therefore, our officer expertise may be a little, not as widely spread as...
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:46:17
How is that done? Anyway, I must have touched it.
Do our officers agree with the general assessment, if I can summarise the 34 pages, with regard
to embodied carbon, that it is legitimate, reasonable and it's reasonable to anticipate
that this kind of takedown and old potentially inefficient smallish building replaced with
the large efficient building built with in some very low way can produce a net benefit
in terms of embodied and released carbon in less than 50 years.
Officer - 0:47:04
Officers have no particular reason to disagree with the content of the report, but it's all
part of the planning balance that you've got to consider, which is part of the reason why
Council McEwen referred the item to committee.
So you've got the loss of the non -designated heritage asset.
Now you can form your own views upon that.
You can say, okay, I agree with what officers are saying,
or you can come to different conclusions and say,
well, yes, okay, but looking at the alterations
been done to that property since,
is it worthwhile retaining?
But then you've got to consider, okay,
so okay, I've got over the hurdle,
that I'm satisfied that I can disagree with officers
in terms of the loss of the non -designated heritage asset,
But then, am I happy with the design of the alternative,
bearing in mind the concerns that have been raised in terms
of the scale and massing, the height, et cetera,
and the relationship to the two designated heritage assets?
And then part of that consideration also is,
as part of my reasoning, is the environmental benefits
and enhancements that can be accrued from this development
sufficient to put aside the harm
to the designated heritage assets?
So we have no reason to disagree with the additional state
that was received on Monday lunchtime. It's up to you as members as to what
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:48:17
weight you give that in the overall planning balance. Thank you so much chair
just therefore as a corollary really could I seek assurance from the Chief
and the team that well as we draw up our new local plan to 2043 that we make
appropriate and up -to -date reference to the issue of carbon release and embodied carbon
because there is, if we think of the empty Tesco store for instance that's been blighting
siren system, one of the ugliest buildings in the Cotswolds, everybody who looks at it
says knock it down. I want to know from a climate point of view if that's ever going
to be the best option from the point of view of climate as opposed to the point of view
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:49:01
having an OB building. You see that's not relevant to the application today but it
is relevant to policy. Yeah thank you very much for drawing that to our
attention but as you said it's not relevant to this application today. I
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:49:15
think councillor Judd is next and then councillor Vann. Thank you. Andrew I
can't I might have missed it but are we allowed more detail as to officers
response to the first or the second pre -app what was allowed what was
Officer - 0:49:37
recommended are we allowed to know what was pre applications are confidential
not in a public domain the only times I've ever known them be made public is
when an agent has included them as an appendix to their planning statement but
they're not something that we we publicise they're not something that's
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:49:57
publicly available for people to see. And the other thing I was interested in
is if I was one of the other members talked about the positioning of the
current property within the site and how attractive it is that it's at the back
of the site and how nice it is to have the garden at the front and it seemed to
me obviously because it's been it's settled and it's been there for a
years also but it seemed to me a very strange position for a larger house in
relation to where the current house is why not put the big house on top of the
old house is that a practical consideration or was there is that
simply so that they you know something to do with getting stones out of the way
I'm going to understand why the positioning of that.
Officer - 0:50:52
Not really something I'm really in position to comment upon.
It's what's in front of you for consideration as part of
determination of this application.
The dwelling could go anywhere within the plot,
the wider plot alone, I suppose.
You can have overlap in footprint.
You can have a footprint entirely on top,
or you can have it moved to the side.
But you just need to consider the application in terms of the
issues in front of you.
I have to say that the loss of the non -designated heritage asset, the design scale, the replacement
and the impact on the setting.
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:51:23
And my third question is that the garage itself, the proposed garage, seems to be almost the
same size as the house that is proposed to be knocked down.
I mean is that normal for such a huge garage with very high roof garage?
I mean that's sort of property in itself, I mean is that,
that's almost like a separate,
I mean it's not a separate application.
It's within the same application,
but it just, that bulk does seem extraordinary.
Officer - 0:52:00
I said in the introduction,
there's the height of the outbuilding
is approximately 42 centimetres lower
than the ridge height of the existing property.
But otherwise your comments are noted, but, you know,
officers have formed a view that they're not concerned
necessarily about the impact upon that on the amenities
and neighbouring properties.
And ultimately if this development was constructed,
if the landscaping shown on the plan, if I can have the screen
up again, please.
With the retention of the existing trees and the
additional planting, it should be pretty well screened
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:52:40
in the wider landscape. It is noted that the refusal reasons do refer to the
dwelling and out buildings and there is concern with the scale, height and design
of the dwelling and out buildings offices are in terms of those aspects of the
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:52:53
garage as well. I think that's probably what I was getting at is that when you
say the building and the out building it's not sort of the
building specifically and including the out building specifically does that make
sense. It was a little bit obscure as to how much weight you were putting on the garage.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:53:16
Thank you very much. Councillor Vann.
Councillor Michael Vann - 0:53:20
Mine is a puzzle. The letter from Montague Evans is dated the 6th of October and I have
heard reference to a couple of days ago. We are on the 14th of November.
Officer - 0:53:42
There are two letters within the additional pages. The original letter was received in
early October. The one I referred to a couple of days ago is the whole life carbon assessment
report, which is the second half of the additional pages.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:53:58
Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:54:02
Councillor Bridges. I seem to be the one that didn't go and visit.
How many other houses nearby are of this scale? High status I think the word being used. And
also how many other houses nearby have got these huge garages? Because it seems like
it's a nice house but a rather disproportionately sized garage. I must
Officer - 0:54:31
admit I haven't gone around checking the entire village for to compare the size
of this as to other properties although if you if you put the screen up again
please if you look at the aerial photograph you've seen the if what if
just go to this plan here trying to visit that the size of that property
with a footprint of around 240 square metres clearly that is probably larger
than anything you can see on the screen other than agricultural buildings so it
would be a large property in comparison to most every residential property you
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:55:13
can see in that aerial photograph. Can I just say on page 13 of the
additional pages that might help page 13 of the additional pages there's a map
which shows the size of the location of substantial buildings within the village.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:55:30
Did you have another question? Councillor Bridges? Shall I let you look at that
because Councillor Fowles has got a question we'll come back to you.
Councillor Faisal.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:55:41
Councillor Judd asked a question I was going to ask about the pre -app, but rather than asking for the exact wording of the pre -app,
I'm keen to find out whether the advice that the applicant received in the pre -app
has led us to this solution, because it seems to me that if they had two stages of pre -app and the officers have been consistent,
despite the change of case officer,
that it seems strange that we've arrived at something
that we're recommending refusal for.
So are you allowed to answer that question?
It's a bit oblique, but did the pre -app take us
in a particular direction?
Did you encounter resistance at the pre -app,
putting it that way?
What are you allowed to say about the pre -app
without giving us the exact wording?
Harrison?
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:56:35
We can't read, because pre -app's a confidential,
unless the applicant has presented them to us as part of the application,
we can't really discuss the contents.
Obviously, the applicant is acknowledging their statement at the beginning.
It seems to me that, as I said this earlier, you've got a family house that's been there for five generations.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:56:47
There's a lot of emotion and so on attached to it.
Obviously, a huge amount of effort has gone into getting the applicant to this stage.
I certainly, in terms of the architectural design, I'll come onto it in comments,
But I think there's some really nice features in terms of the design and picking up on the vernacular stuff and it's not just a
You know it's Cotswold
vernacular style property, but it just seems surprising that we've gone from something that is
77 square metres to something that's 240 square metres. It just seems very very large and
I'm just concerned, but you can't say any more about the pre -app. So we basically trying to say yeah
So one wonders what the point of a pre -app is for us, okay?
It helps the applicant, but we've arrived at a situation
where this applicant's had two stages of pre -app,
they've now got an application they've put a huge amount
of effort into and money, and we're recommending refusal.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:57:45
Councillor Bridges, are you ready
to ask your next question now?
Very good question.
Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:57:49
I
Are we allowed to refuse the garage and say yes to everything else no, okay
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:58:08
Could that be an amendment to the decision
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:58:18
While we're awaiting an answer to that, can I just ask a couple of things?
So obviously pre -app investigation decisions have been discussed.
So could I just have a little more clarity on is it the replacement building that's causing
more difficulty or is it the destruction of the original non -designated heritage
asset? The design is a replacement building, I mean is there potential for
perhaps a smaller building to be acceptable whereas this one isn't? I
think that's quite a difficult question, please tell me if you can't answer it.
Officer - 0:59:03
The key, the primary consideration is the potential impact on the designated
heritage assets, so that is the conservation area and the setting
of the list of buildings, the settings of both.
My view is that this building and the context
of both of those settings is far too big.
So that is my concern.
The size of it and the design of it
is also quite a high status building,
whereas at the edge of the village here
we've got arts and crafts vernacular style buildings.
And as I talked about the hierarchy of the village
in my, well as part of the report that Andrew put together,
I mean that's also important to the character and setting of the conservation area because
it would have developed over time.
You'd have had the manor house which would be quite big.
You might have a dower house that would be quite big and high status, but generally the
other buildings in the village would have been a lower status, more vernacular.
My professional view is that by adding a house of this scale and status in this location,
which is in the setting of the conservation area on the rural settlement edge, and also
in the setting of the group of listed arts and crafts costages, which in
themselves are modest, and we don't know whether this sort of gap site was
left. Little Tartan is in its own right its own hamlet, so whether this
sort of area of space and lower density in my professional view is important to
both the setting of the designated heritage assets in relation to the
non -designated heritage asset, and that's a much lower bar. In my view it
has significance. I've said that it's relatively moderate to low, so in
balancing that you don't look at public benefit but you do look at other
material considerations and that can be climate change, it can be the design of
the new building, but because I'm saying I don't think the design works in that
context I don't think from my professional view that that can be used
as an outweighing argument to the loss of that property. The climate change
issues potentially could be.
But as I say, I've only just seen the report.
I'm not an expert in it,
but you can retrofit existing buildings.
You can put heat pumps to existing buildings.
So it's also weighing up what you could potentially do
in retrofit and other terms in relation to
what is proposed for the new building.
Thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:01:34
So ultimately if we if we would I'm sure this is correct if we were to turn down
this application that wouldn't prevent the applicant putting in a further
Officer - 1:01:48
application for a somewhat more modest building perhaps.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:01:53
Councillor Clare Turner - 1:01:57
Councillor Turner sorry I've been hogging the floor yeah. Thank you I just sort of
following on from those comments I just wanted to for absolute clarity to ask
the officer if the supplement supplementary information that came
after the report was written would have changed his recommendation in any way
Officer - 1:02:15
no I don't think it would appreciate it's a collective judgement any
recommendation it's not one individual officer but bearing in mind the very
strong concerns raised by mrs. Ward looking at it from the heritage and
design aspect, setting the conservation area,
setting of listed buildings, and notwithstanding also
the design, the scale, the height of the property,
and as Andrew said, the high status property
on the edge of a village, it's all part of the
planning balance, but it wouldn't have altered
the recommendation, even if it had been received
several months ago.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:02:54
Any other questions?
Can I clarify Councillor Bridges' point? Yes.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:03:02
Turning back to Councillor Bridges' point on a split decision.
Split decisions are possible, they are just incredibly difficult because you have to be incredibly clear as to what you are permitting and what you aren't.
Your planning conditions, your approved plans, everything will have to be very, very precise.
Obviously we have a single block plan showing both elements.
We would have to effectively write it in such a way that we are legally defensible.
We've obviously also got to bear in mind the garage is in the description of development. So it may require a revised description development
So if that were a route members going to go down
I think it would have to be delegated to officers to effectively sort of sort all of that out
I would caution members from doing it. It's a lot in my experience. I've never had a split decision issued
You occasionally see planning inspectors doing it, but very rarely so I
Yeah, caution. I'd urge caution if you are designed to go down that route
it is technically possible, but it has to be done incredibly precisely.
And you'd have to justify why one element is fine and one element is not,
and be perfectly clear on that, because obviously a split decision can still be appealed
in terms of the aspect that we've allowed versus not allowed.
So, technically possible, but yeah, just with caution.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:04:07
Thank you very much for that clarification.
So, if there are no further questions, we'll move on to comments and debate.
Councillor Fowles, I think you were just the first.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:04:23
I certainly have changed my view.
When I saw the house, I thought it was a very nice small cottage that over the years there
have been changes to it.
I saw the relationship with Lower Tarlton and listened to the arguments about what's
referred to by the conservation officer as the hierarchy.
And so originally I thought, well, what a shame to remove
such a nice dwelling.
And I agree with everybody else about the garage,
but I'm not really going to talk about the garage because it is
where it is.
But I think it's been brought here by the Planning Review
Committee on the recommendation of the case office,
of the ward member because it is so finely balanced and because
it's all about its setting and the heritage asset etc etc so I I'm
supporting the views of the conservation officer I I would be happy for the
property the existing property to be to be removed and to be replaced with
something that is more modest is more contemporary has all the benefits in
in terms of carbon and energy, etc., etc.
I just think it's like the right house in the wrong location.
It's a lovely looking house, but it is huge,
and I think it's going to have a significant impact.
But I think the applicant, in principle, we've moved forward,
and I think there could be another house put on that site,
replacing the existing one that reflects what's been said by the Conservation Officer,
which is why I think Councillor Judd and I were quite keen to find out what the pre -app advice was.
So I'm going to support the officer's recommendation, but hope that the applicant can come back with something that is a little bit more
smaller in terms of scale and design.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:06:19
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:06:21
Thank you, thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Councillor Fowles. You're never going to know what the pre -app advice was, unfortunately.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:06:33
Councillor Brasington. Thank you. I must agree with my colleague, Councillor Fowlers,
everything you said that, plus the garage as well. But it is a very difficult
application to consider. I can appreciate the comments on both sides. But on balance
I'm going to go with the officer's recommendation. I think that the scale
and massing of a new house is too much. We're including an increase in height
from six point whatever it was to ten point eight metres increase in floor space of one
floor from seventy seven to two hundred and forty square metres plus we have a very large
new building of a form of a garage and we have to render that the application doesn't
comply with the topsoil design code where we've made reference to it in several places.
Please find it.
Is it with me?
I've lost it.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:07:41
If you find it, please come back again.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:07:43
Contrary to policies, that one, page 40.
yeah it doesn't apply with design codes in D16, D18, D67, numerous local plan
policies and the national planning policy framework and also have been seen
from a conservation officer the effect on a non designated heritage assets so I
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:08:11
shall go with the officers recommendation thank you. So I would you
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:08:19
like to propose that and Councillor Fels would you like to second that? I'm just
asking if we have a proposal on the table.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:08:28
Okay we'll go with the flow. Councillor Fels proposed, Councillor
Any further comments?
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:08:44
Thank you, Chair.
Yes, just going back to the split decision -making,
I think I remember your predecessor, Harrison, saying, don't.
And he gave very, he was a little bit more forceful than you.
He said, don't.
you're leaving us in very exposed.
But just going on, when I was there,
and if you drive through Rodmartin,
there is this sort of simplicity, this square,
and going through all our Cotswold villages,
how rare is it to have a pretty, you know,
smallish house with a lovely great big garden?
And I was struck by what the conservation officers said
about that gap is meant to be,
And that has come up before Justin, our other conservation officer,
has said that these gaps in villages are very important
and they are what makes these villages still feel rural.
And the embodied carbon thing slightly worries me.
I seem to remember, I don't know if it's been spoken about,
but it's 34 years or something, you know, as an estimate, to make up that.
I think it's a lovely design, the house.
that doesn't bother me at all but I do quite like small houses in small
villages. Every village has had all their small cottages extended and improved and
they're all mini, they're all manor houses now. Everybody's got to have
everything so big all the time and the other thing I would like to add is that
I felt that it was just a feeling. It felt as though it was meant to be there,
that house in that place and I think that that's probably exactly what the
Conservation Office is trying to do. I'm doing it from an emotional point of view
and you're doing it from an intellectual and academic point of view.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:10:51
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:10:55
Thank you councillor Judd. Councillor Coleman. Yes this is a rare occasion in
I'm not certain I've decided which way I'm going to vote yet. But it's because of the
context we come back to over and over again. First of all, Delightful Village with the
rare asset of a village school, but under current planning regime, national, county
and local, no prospect of a significant enough number of new dwellings to be built to support
that facility. However, what we do have is, as I think our public speaker
indicated, a largely retired resourceful community who were able to ensure that
life is not finished. And that was quite common, funny enough, back in the days
when chaps got early retirement in their 50s and teachers did too and were able to
support their local community. So those times may not come back but what we can
say is we have a genuine community it's just can't be as inclusive and diverse
as everybody would like because of the overriding importance or holding on to
our conservation areas in an AOMB and nobody's planning to change either of
those. So then we come back to the balance of public benefit in terms of
the, I don't need to say any more about the importance of the history and the
narrative and listed buildings and the views and all the rest of it.
And so it comes down to do we allow, because investment is made of time and money in enormous
amounts, commitment has been made, something like this to go ahead, knowing that it, and
I almost always take opposite advice, much as we'd like to say, can we have the house
and not the garage perhaps, we're not going to do that.
So, I'm making a sort of speech I may not have made for 15 years, which is to say I'm
going to listen to any further comments and I may end up abstaining.
Sorry, Chair.
That's okay.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:12:59
You're quite within your rights to abstain, if that's how you feel.
Councillor Fowles.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:13:08
In making my proposal to support the officer's recommendation, I'm a governor of a primary
school in Hasbro. I've just come from an open day today where there were 15 families there
and I can't comment on this school but a lot of the schools that I know about are alive
and well because the catchment area is broader than just
Rod Martin or Little Tarleton.
But I can't comment on it.
So whether this house is built or not,
I don't think the issue of the school is relevant.
What I want to make abundantly clear is where I perhaps differ
from Julia is that I think the family,
if they could go away and if the recommendation is supported,
I'm very supportive of another house going on there as long as it reflects what the officers
and hopefully the pre -app has actually suggested.
Because I do buy into the fact that it's, you know, we're living in modern times, one
bathroom, oil -fired central heating and so on.
And I could see that changing what's there already could be quite complicated.
But replacing what's there, which I was really attacked and I got really, I thought it was
lovely when I went there.
With this house and sitting here and listening to Councillor Brasington's comment, I just think it's just too much on that site.
And I think it's important to get that hierarchy sort of. But I don't think the work that's been done by the officer, officers or the applicant is wasted.
That's where I'm coming from. I just think more work needs to be done to get something that's more sympathetic, modest, whatever.
But still a nice modern family home with all the benefits that we know are important.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:14:52
Thank you. Are there any other comments?
That's lovely to see. An outbreak of agreement.
Can I have one more? Yes, of course.
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:15:04
Very quick point. I know it's not possible, but in a pipe dream this is literally the first time I can remember
where I regret almost planning policy that you're not allowed to build a house bigger than, you know,
I think that that would tick all the boxes as long as he took the garage off.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:15:31
Thank you very much. Are there any other...
Councillor van.
Councillor Michael Vann - 1:15:37
For the reasons given in the officer's report and in answer to the questions this afternoon,
I'm going to support the officer's recommendation.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:15:51
Councillor Nick Bridges - 1:15:56
Thank you very much. Councillor Bridges. I too am going to support the officer's
recommendation but I would just like to say to the architect it looks gorgeous. I
love bay windows and please don't be too disheartened by the result this
afternoon.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:16:12
Anyone else? Can I make a comment? Thank you very much. I have to say I entirely
agree with my distinguished colleague Councillor Fowles and Councillor
Bressington. I absolutely sympathise with the desire of this family to have a
better property that's more suited to their current needs. But I just have
to agree with the Conservation Office that this property is just a bit too big
And bulky, but I would say that we're not saying, please,
you can never get a different property.
We're just saying, in my opinion,
that this isn't quite the right design.
But we would love you to come back with something else.
So that's just my opinion.
I understand what we deeply sympathise with the family,
but we also have to look at our designated heritage assets.
And so, yeah.
So, yeah.
Question, if I may.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:17:20
What does that therefore mean if we're all...
If that's the direction we're saying, that we refuse,
but actually does that mean this application is still live?
Or is it now a new application with all the associated costs?
Because it seems to me that that's a bit unfair.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:17:43
to the applicant as well as a bit of clarity from Harrison. We're proceeding with a determination of
the application we are required to determine applications in a reasonable time frame so we
would be determining this application and any future development would be part of a new application.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:18:00
That's how it goes unfortunately. Okay so we're going to proceed with the vote to
go with the office's recommendation to refuse.
Do you want me to read out the refusal reasons?
I think there are three, essentially.
But...
Since I'm the proposal, I would say that whether we need to
articulate them to their fullest extent,
but the three points that were made in the recommendation to me
cover it, but I think we could perhaps come up with a slightly
tighter version of those.
But I think they've...
It's very what I mean I I
Don't remember seeing such a clearly recent reasons for refuse a set of reasons for refusal
Yeah
I just felt there's perhaps a little bit of overlap between the three of them and it could pass be time
But the three points that were made don't know what councillor brassington feels. I think those are the reasons where we're
Supporting the officer's recommendation. Yeah mentioned in the
regions for refusal yeah, I think we perhaps don't need to summarise them. We've all seen what the reasons are and
and Mr. Moody has outlined his reasons
and our conservation officer have outlined the reasons.
So we're voting on the recommendation
given by, proposed by Councillor Fowles,
seconded by Councillor Brassington
to accept the office's recommendation
to refuse this particular application.
So we go to the vote now.
Are we missing one person?
No, that's fine.
yeah so that that application is refused.
Yeah I am, we've got eight, we're eight of us.
Yeah seven are in favour of accepting the office's recommendation and one
against so that application is refused.
Thank you.
Turning back to our agenda.

9 Sites Inspection Briefing

There is potential for a site inspection briefing
on the third of December.
Do you know if there is going to be?
Nothing at the moment.
At the moment there isn't,
but if you look on page three,
if there is one, the Councillor's required would be myself,
Councillor Watson, Councillor Bridges,
Councillor Caw and Councillor Mann.

10 Licensing Sub-Committee

So hold yourself in readiness for this SIB if required. Do we know if there's a licencing subcommittee on the 27th?
No, there isn't. Great.
Again, we'll be told if we're needed.
So our next meeting is on the 10th of December. I look forward to seeing you then.
Webcast Finished - 1:21:10
So we'll stop our live broadcast now. Thank you very much.

There are currently no votes to display