Planning and Licensing Committee - Wednesday 11 February 2026, 2:00pm - Vote_events Tab - Cotswold District Council Webcasting

Planning and Licensing Committee
Wednesday, 11th February 2026 at 2:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Dilys Neill
  2. Councillor Ian Watson
  3. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  4. Councillor David Fowles
  5. Councillor Michael Vann
  6. Councillor Julia Judd
  7. Councillor Nick Bridges
  8. Councillor Daryl Corps
  9. Councillor Joe Harris
  10. Councillor Dilys Neill
  11. Officer
  12. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  13. Officer
  14. Councillor Dilys Neill
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Dilys Neill
  2. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  3. Councillor Dilys Neill
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Dilys Neill
  2. Councillor Dilys Neill
  3. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  4. Councillor Dilys Neill
  5. Officer
  6. Councillor Dilys Neill
  7. Councillor Dilys Neill
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor David Fowles
  2. Councillor Dilys Neill
  3. Councillor David Fowles
  4. Councillor Dilys Neill
  5. Councillor David Fowles
  6. Councillor Dilys Neill
  7. Councillor David Fowles
  8. Councillor Dilys Neill
  9. Councillor Ian Watson
  10. Councillor Dilys Neill
  11. Councillor Dilys Neill
  12. Councillor Nick Bridges
  13. Councillor Dilys Neill
  14. Councillor Nick Bridges
  15. Councillor Dilys Neill
  16. Councillor Nick Bridges
  17. Councillor Dilys Neill
  18. 11. Budget 2026-27 and Financial Strategy - Approve recommendations 1-11
    Status: In progress
  19. 04. APPROVE Minutes of a meeting held 14 January 2026
    Status: Ended
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Dilys Neill
  2. Town/Parish Council
  3. Objector
  4. Councillor Dilys Neill
  5. Applicant/Agent
  6. Councillor Dilys Neill
  7. Ward Member
  8. Councillor Dilys Neill
  9. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  10. Councillor Dilys Neill
  11. Councillor David Fowles
  12. Councillor Dilys Neill
  13. Councillor Julia Judd
  14. Councillor Dilys Neill
  15. Councillor Dilys Neill
  16. Councillor David Fowles
  17. Officer
  18. Councillor David Fowles
  19. Officer
  20. Councillor Dilys Neill
  21. Councillor Nick Bridges
  22. Officer
  23. Councillor Dilys Neill
  24. Councillor Julia Judd
  25. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  26. Councillor Julia Judd
  27. Officer
  28. Councillor Julia Judd
  29. Officer
  30. Councillor Julia Judd
  31. Officer
  32. Councillor Dilys Neill
  33. Councillor Dilys Neill
  34. Councillor Joe Harris
  35. Officer
  36. Councillor Joe Harris
  37. Officer
  38. Councillor Dilys Neill
  39. Officer
  40. Councillor Dilys Neill
  41. Officer
  42. Councillor Dilys Neill
  43. Officer
  44. Councillor Dilys Neill
  45. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  46. Officer
  47. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  48. Officer
  49. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  50. Officer
  51. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  52. Officer
  53. Councillor Dilys Neill
  54. Councillor Daryl Corps
  55. Officer
  56. Councillor Dilys Neill
  57. Councillor David Fowles
  58. Officer
  59. Councillor Dilys Neill
  60. Councillor Nick Bridges
  61. Officer
  62. Councillor Dilys Neill
  63. Councillor Joe Harris
  64. Councillor Dilys Neill
  65. Councillor Julia Judd
  66. Councillor Dilys Neill
  67. Councillor Ian Watson
  68. Councillor Dilys Neill
  69. Councillor David Fowles
  70. Councillor Dilys Neill
  71. Councillor Michael Vann
  72. Councillor Dilys Neill
  73. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  74. Councillor Dilys Neill
  75. Officer
  76. Councillor Dilys Neill
  77. Councillor Dilys Neill
  78. 08. 25/02983/OUT Folly View, Willersey - PERMIT subject to requirements/objections
    Status: In progress
  79. Councillor David Fowles
  80. Councillor Dilys Neill
  81. 08. 25/02983/OUT Folly View, Willersey - PERMIT subject to requirements/objections
    Status: Ended
  82. Councillor David Fowles
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Dilys Neill
  2. Councillor David Fowles
  3. Councillor Dilys Neill
  4. Officer
  5. Councillor Dilys Neill
  6. Ward Member
  7. Councillor Dilys Neill
  8. Councillor David Fowles
  9. Councillor Dilys Neill
  10. Councillor David Fowles
  11. Councillor Dilys Neill
  12. Councillor David Fowles
  13. Councillor Dilys Neill
  14. Councillor Dilys Neill
  15. Councillor Daryl Corps
  16. Councillor Dilys Neill
  17. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  18. Officer
  19. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  20. Councillor Dilys Neill
  21. Councillor Ian Watson
  22. Officer
  23. Councillor Dilys Neill
  24. Councillor Joe Harris
  25. Councillor Dilys Neill
  26. Councillor Daryl Corps
  27. Councillor Dilys Neill
  28. Councillor Daryl Corps
  29. Councillor Julia Judd
  30. Councillor Dilys Neill
  31. Councillor David Fowles
  32. Councillor Dilys Neill
  33. Officer
  34. Councillor Dilys Neill
  35. Councillor David Fowles
  36. 09. 25/03122/FUL Wyck Hill Farm - PERMIT subject to S106/delegations
    Status: In progress
  37. 09. 25/03122/FUL Wyck Hill Farm - PERMIT subject to S106/delegations
    Status: Ended
  38. Councillor Dilys Neill
Share this agenda point
  1. Officer
  2. Councillor Dilys Neill
  3. Objector
  4. Applicant/Agent
  5. Ward Member
  6. Councillor Dilys Neill
  7. Councillor Nick Bridges
  8. Councillor Dilys Neill
  9. Councillor Julia Judd
  10. Councillor Dilys Neill
  11. Councillor David Fowles
  12. Councillor Dilys Neill
  13. Councillor David Fowles
  14. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  15. Councillor Dilys Neill
  16. Councillor David Fowles
  17. Officer
  18. Councillor Dilys Neill
  19. Officer
  20. Councillor Dilys Neill
  21. Councillor Julia Judd
  22. Officer
  23. Councillor Dilys Neill
  24. Officer
  25. Councillor Joe Harris
  26. Councillor Dilys Neill
  27. Councillor Joe Harris
  28. Councillor Daryl Corps
  29. Councillor Dilys Neill
  30. Councillor Daryl Corps
  31. Councillor Dilys Neill
  32. Councillor Julia Judd
  33. Councillor Dilys Neill
  34. Councillor David Fowles
  35. Councillor Dilys Neill
  36. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  37. Councillor Dilys Neill
  38. Councillor Julia Judd
  39. Councillor Dilys Neill
  40. Councillor Julia Judd
  41. Councillor Dilys Neill
  42. Councillor Joe Harris
  43. Councillor Dilys Neill
  44. Councillor Joe Harris
  45. Councillor Dilys Neill
  46. Councillor Joe Harris
  47. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  48. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  49. Officer
  50. Councillor Dilys Neill
  51. Officer
  52. Councillor Dilys Neill
  53. Councillor Julia Judd
  54. Officer
  55. Councillor Dilys Neill
  56. Officer
  57. Councillor Dilys Neill
  58. Officer
  59. Officer
  60. Councillor Julia Judd
  61. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  62. Councillor Dilys Neill
  63. Councillor David Fowles
  64. Councillor Dilys Neill
  65. Councillor David Fowles
  66. Councillor Dilys Neill
  67. Councillor David Fowles
  68. Councillor Dilys Neill
  69. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  70. Councillor Dilys Neill
  71. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  72. Councillor Dilys Neill
  73. Councillor Joe Harris
  74. Councillor Dilys Neill
  75. Councillor Joe Harris
  76. Councillor Dilys Neill
  77. Councillor Joe Harris
  78. Councillor Dilys Neill
  79. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  80. Councillor Dilys Neill
  81. Councillor Julia Judd
  82. Councillor Dilys Neill
  83. 09. 25/03122/FUL Wyck Hill Farm - PERMIT subject to S106/delegations
    Status: In progress
  84. Councillor David Fowles
  85. Councillor Dilys Neill
  86. Councillor David Fowles
  87. 10. 24/02513/FUL Siddington Park - REFUSE
    Status: Ended
  88. Councillor Dilys Neill
  89. Councillor David Fowles
  90. Councillor Dilys Neill
  91. Officer
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Dilys Neill
  2. Officer
  3. Councillor Juliet Layton
  4. Councillor Dilys Neill
  5. Councillor Julia Judd
  6. Councillor Dilys Neill
  7. Councillor David Fowles
  8. Councillor Dilys Neill
  9. Officer
  10. Councillor Dilys Neill
  11. Councillor Juliet Layton
  12. Councillor Dilys Neill
  13. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  14. Councillor Dilys Neill
  15. Councillor Nick Bridges
  16. Councillor Dilys Neill
  17. Councillor Nick Bridges
  18. Councillor Dilys Neill
  19. Officer
  20. Councillor Dilys Neill
  21. Councillor Michael Vann
  22. Councillor Dilys Neill
  23. 11. NPPF reforms - APPROVE recommendations 1-2
    Status: In progress
  24. 11. NPPF reforms - APPROVE recommendations 1-2
    Status: Ended
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  2. Councillor Dilys Neill
  3. Councillor Dilys Neill
  4. Councillor Dilys Neill
  5. Webcast Finished

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:00:06
Good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of the planning committee of Cotswold District
Council.
I welcome members.
Members of the public, thank you for being in attendance and also I know there are members
who regularly watch the planning committee on the webcast at home.
Thank you very much for taking an interest too.
So when we come to the vote,
we use an electronic voting system
and you'll be able to,
those of you who are sitting at the back
will be able to see it on the screens,
who's voted and in what way,
and also people at home should be able to see
the way the vote is gone.
If for any reason that the electronic mechanism fails,
we should revert to the old fashioned method
of raising our hands.
Can I now ask everybody to make sure
that their phones are off or on silent?
Mine rang at our last committee meeting, I think,
which is very embarrassing.
So please make sure your phone is switched off.
Members of the public are not supposed to talk to members
of the committee, not allowed to talk to members of the committee,
even if it's somebody that you know or your ward member.
Please don't talk to us during the meeting or between case,
between applications.
And you're not allowed to interrupt proceedings.
Only the people who have registered as speakers may speak.
So, I'm going to advise the public speakers now.
I know there's a lot of you who have come to speak.
In each case, you'll be called forward after the officer has made the presentation.
You'll be called forward.
And each person who comes forward will be allowed three minutes to present their case.
So, we have some, we have people from the town council, people who are objecting to
the application, people who are supporting the application and the
applicant or the agent. Those are four people who are allowed to speak for each
application and finally the local ward member gets five minutes to speak. So
each of you public speakers who come forward, so you will get three minutes to
have your say and my colleague Councillor Watson will be here to
time you and he'll let you know when you've come to the end of your time.
you'll be allowed to finish your sentence but not to go on for another paragraph or so.
Great okay I think that's covered everything and now I'd like to introduce the members of
the planning committee. I'm Dylis Neil I'm currently the chair of planning and I represent
Councillor Ian Watson - 0:02:41
Stowall the Wold. Council Ian Watson representing the Tethbury town ward and vice chair.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:02:51
I'm Patrick Coleman. I'm the Councillor for Stratton Ward in Cirencester.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:02:59
Good afternoon. I'm Councillor David Fowles. I represent the Colm Valley Ward which runs from Fosse Bridge on the Fosse Way to Letchley.
Councillor Michael Vann - 0:03:10
I'm Michael Vann, Councillor for Fairford North. Thanks.
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:03:18
I'm Julia Judd and my ward is Ermin Ward.
Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:03:25
You are in Watermore Ward at the moment and I'm Nick Bridges.
Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:03:32
I'm Nick Bridges.
I'm Nick Bridges.
I'm Nick Bridges.
I'm Nick Bridges.
Councillor Joe Harris - 0:03:40
I'm Nick Bridges.
I'm Nick Bridges.
I'm Nick Bridges.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:03:45
Thank you very much. Now would the officers like to introduce themselves?
Officer - 0:03:52
Good afternoon, I'm Mari Barnes, legal advisor to this committee.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:03:59
Good afternoon, I'm Harrison Boley, I'm the head of planning services for the Council.
Officer - 0:04:03
I'm Martin Perks, principal planning officer.

1 Apologies

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:09
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:14
Thank you very much. Do we have any apologies and any substitutions? Councillor Coleman,
you're here.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:04:19
Thank you, Chair. Yes, about 20 minutes ago I received a call from Councillor Ray Brussington
advising that he's unable to attend today and I promised to give his apologies.

2 Substitute Members

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:32
Thank you very much and I'm guessing it's too late to find a substitute. The rest of us are all here I think. Good.

3 Declarations of Interest

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:47
Do any members have a declaration of interest on any of the items on the agenda? No, that's great.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:51
Councillor Coleman were you about to say something?
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:04:54
It's a very modest declaration interest but with regard to application 10 and the adjacent
residential buildings which were part of our site inspection briefing last week, I know
that I am a, I know a couple, man and wife who live in one of those houses, I don't know
with the husband in the male voice choir.
I'm convinced that this is not a reason
to exclude me from the debate or the decision.
Thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:05:33
Yes.
We'll all come along to your next concert, Patrick.
That's not a interest, is it?
Officer - 0:05:42
No, I think if the Councillor is satisfied
that he can approach this in an open manner,
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:05:54
then I'm satisfied that that's acceptable. Thank you and do any officers

4 Minutes

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:06:01
have an interest in any of the applications? Great. Oh sorry, Councillor
Councillor David Fowles - 0:06:05
Fowles. Could I make, I beg your indulgence, it's not a declaration of
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:06:14
interest but it's more a declaration of clarification. Would you allow me to? Yes,
Councillor David Fowles - 0:06:17
if it's going to be of educational interest. On a number of occasions I've
had people say to me two things. One is the issue of if people are not present and the
size of the committee effectively reduces. On a couple of occasions we have been down
to about seven or eight members. Our quorum is obviously three people. So if someone can't
come, they are obliged to try and get a substitute if for whatever reason it is a last minute
So I think that needs to be made clear to the public.
And also the other comment I've had is I've heard on occasions that someone has said there's a planning application in Willersley,
but there doesn't appear to be anybody on the planning committee who represents anywhere near Willersley.
And some clarification on the way the committee is actually structured, which is it's a cross -section of councillors.
That's all I know today. We've got an application which and siren sister and obviously there are a lot of siren sister members here
Which is great, but sometimes we're making decisions on places where none of them none of the members of the committee
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:07:28
Represent anywhere near at that place. I just thought that should I've got kind of clarified it already, but I just thought I'd mention it
Councillor David Fowles - 0:07:31
Councillor Coleman
Well, Chair, I'd just like to observe there are three members from Councillors, three
Councillor members here today from Sire and Sester, but early in his contribution, Councillor
Fowles was suggesting that three was far too small a number to make a decision. I think
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:07:52
Councillor David Fowles - 0:07:54
this is a bit off the point all round. It's not necessarily more democratic to have more
people.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:07:57
Okay, so I think the number recommended by the government is going to be 11, isn't it?
I believe, yes.
Yes, so we are normally 11.
We're one down at the moment because of a recent by -election.
That's going to be sorted out at our full council meeting shortly.
Council of House, can you switch your microphone?
And of course, if anybody wants to pick up on Council of House's valid point, each application
that comes in the ward member is of course allowed to represent the wards
and Councillor Stowe is going to be here to represent Willersie. We are, I was just
observing when we started that we are actually quite a broad spectrum across
the district so I'm from the north and there's several of you Councillor Cawes
from the north as well. There are Syrinsester members, Tethbury, Fairford,
so we are a fairly good cross section and Willersie is going to be represented
extremely well by their Councillor Tom Stowe. Thank you. Okay just a brief remark and then
Councillor Ian Watson - 0:09:03
we'll draw this to a close otherwise we'll never get started. Very brief comment. I think
in this committee we're deciding on the law not where we represent and that we should
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:09:14
keep in mind. Thank you very much it's an interesting discussion but we're going to
move on now. So the minutes of the previous meeting does anyone have a comment on any
of the minutes of the previous meeting.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:09:26
Right then, if you're happy with them,
is there anyone who would like to propose
that we accept the minutes?
Councillor van, thank you very much.
Seconded, Councillor Bridges, okay.
Oh, sorry.
Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:09:45
Half asleep.
Yeah, on page four, it says the ward member
for Siddington Park is councillor David Vowles. That's news to me. It's clearly
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:09:58
Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:10:00
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:10:11
councillor Evermy isn't it? So I've got a comment on page seven. Actually the
thing about that your page four is not actually on the minutes but that is of
interest. That's on the agenda. Yeah. Council Fowles, you've got something on the minutes.
Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:10:23
Well yes, under 226 declarations of interest, it says Council Fowles
arrived at the chamber. That's not a declaration of interest. I know it was
five minutes late because of roadworks and I rang in and apologised but I was
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:10:43
there obviously to take part in all the discussions so I just wondered why that's down.
that should be ahead, that should be moved up ahead
of the declarations of interest in that case.
Thank you very much.
Anybody else have a comment?
Great, in that case, can we move to a vote on the minutes?
So, Councillor van has proposed that we accept it.
I don't think we've had a seconder.
Oh, sorry, Councillor Bridges, you did second it.
Well, I will this time.
Okay.
Although I wasn't here, come to think of it, so I can't.
Oh, I haven't noticed that.
Would somebody else like to second it?
Councillor Judd, thank you very much.
Could you kindly amend that Democratic Services Office?
One of us hasn't voted.
Julia your vote hasn't come up. So that's seven in favour into abstention.
So those minutes are carried. Okay chairs announcements. We've got quite a lot on

5 Chair's Announcements

the agenda so can I once again remind people to be as brief as possible with
their questions and comments and if a previous member has said something that
you are about to raise please just say my appoint has already been raised so
that we can progress smoothly with the meeting and the agenda may well
take more than two hours in which case I'll offer you a comfort break of two
hours if that's what you'd like. Right are there any public questions?

6 Public questions

7 Member questions

Schedule of Applications

And I don't think we've received any members questions. Fine in that case we're
We're going to move on to the applications on the agenda.
So our first application is on page 23
of your agenda pack.
And it's an outline application to the erection
of up to 30 dwellings with associated means of access,
car parking, public open space, landscaping,
sustainable drainage system, and associated infrastructure.
All matters reserved except for access at the land
north of Follyview Broadway Road Willersie. The case officer is Martin Perks and the recommendation
is to permit subject to completion of a section 106 legal agreement covering financial contributions
to secondary education, library services, community transport, the provision of affordable
housing and self -built custom housing and financial contributions to Willersie Parish Council
for improvements to the village hall recreation ground and cemetery. So the
ward members are Councillor Bloomfield and Councillor Stowe who is here today
and I'm going to ask Councillor Perks to, sorry, Mr. Perks to give us an
Councillor David Fowles - 0:13:47
update. Thank you very much.
Councillor Michael Vann - 0:13:56
Officer - 0:13:59
Yes, should be fine, thank you.
Yes, just go through the additional pages
published on the 9th of the 2nd,
which you should have seen.
Just to clarify clarification,
we just want to change the recommendation
to permit subject to no objection
from Gloucestershire County Council
lead local flood authority
in addition to what was previously recommended.
Just for clarification, it was mentioned in the report,
but it was missing from the top of the report.
So we just want to clarify that.
Also, clarification, Willesby Parish Council has confirmed its request for contributions
to the village hall of £121 ,150.
And also, we had additional information on Monday from the applicant in relation to the
surface water drainage matters and their correspondence with the lead local flood authority and together
with an updated drainage scheme strategy plan.
The lead local flood authority is still looking at that information.
So as it stands at the moment, the recommendation is still permit subject, no objection from
lead local flood authority as previously recommended.
We think the measures in that strategy can be satisfactorily addressed, but at the moment
it's just with the lead local flood authority to confirm that.
So we'd request that obviously we deal with that through final agreement with the ward
members should this application be agreed to be permitted today. I don't know if you
need time to look through that information or whether you've already done that. Otherwise
I'll crack on. Sorry, carry on.
the back line here, can we increase the volume of the...
Shall I carry on? Is that better? Okay. Also, further correspondence, we received an objection
letter on behalf of residents in Folly View yesterday, which I forwarded you yesterday
by email. Just to summarise in case you didn't see the email, it states, we're concerned
that submitted illustrative layout does not demonstrate that the new dwellings can be
positioned at a sufficient distance from existing dwellings so as to prevent unacceptable harm
to existing residents. The applicants design an access statement, promise substantial landscape
buffer to mitigate the visual harm and overlooking of the development and protect privacy.
So where is the substantial landscape buffer?
This would require a minimum of three metre width, ideally four.
Yet the rear gardens of the properties are of an insufficient depth to accommodate the
necessary width of screening.
There are four garages sited within less than half a metre of the boundary, so no opportunity
to provide screening there.
The other issue is residents are further concerned about noise intrusion during construction
and afterwards you suggest that construction will be limited to daylight hours but the
residents are in their houses or gardens for the major part of the day.
To mitigate this there should be further restrictions by way of no plant working at the weekend
and no driven piling.
That's just to summarise that letter.
Finally, I received an email again from a local resident this morning copying me into
correspondence they'd received from Seven Trent Water in response to the questions they'd
raised to the organisation about foul drainage capacity. The letter is about five pages long
but there's some key factors which I think are quite important in establishing the context
within which seven Trent water are operating at the moment.
So if I read those to you, it says,
we believe that the key contributing factors
include unmapped surface water connexions
to the fell network, which have not been accounted for
through our usual connexion approval processes
alongside wider surface water infiltration
into the wastewater network,
which still requires detailed investigation
investigation to understand the most effective and appropriate solution.
While we have historically invested significantly in the village, the system as designed should
be capable of accommodating the number of connected properties, which is predominantly
a foul -only system.
Infiltration issues and unmapped surface water connexions can undermine performance and
are not necessarily resolved through asset up -sizing alone.
As part of this investigation, we are also reviewing the operation of the pumping station
to ensure that this asset is fully optimised.
Later in the response, Willersey is served by Honeybourne Sewage Treatment Works, which
has a sufficient capacity to accommodate existing and forecast foul flows, including those arising
from recent and proposed development in the area.
We do not consider the treatment works itself to be at or over capacity, however we recognise
that there are hydraulic capacity constraints within sections of the upstream sewage network
conveying flows to the works.
As outlined previously, our current assessment indicates that surface water infiltration
into the sewer network is likely displacing available capacity within the network, particularly
during periods of wet weather, which is a key factor contributing to the flooding issues.
New developments are required to follow sustainable drainage principles, meaning surface water
should be managed on site and not connected to the foul sewer network other than as a
last resort.
The additional foul only flows from new development would, in isolation, not normally be expected
to give rise to capacity concerns at the treatment works or within the network.
However, where unmatched surface water connexions and infiltration is present, it can significantly
reduce the effective hydraulic capacity of the system, making the impact of additional
connexions appear disproportionate to their actual flow contribution.
As such, the focus of our investigation is on understanding and addressing the network
performance issues. Hopefully that explains in a bit more background the context what the issues
with the foul drainage system are present, and the issues are not necessarily with foul water
capacity. It's mainly to do with the surface water infiltration getting into that system,
which is causing the problems.
And that's what they're currently looking at.
And that's what something that would be looked at as part of
the ongoing discussions between the applicants and
7 Trent Water and as part of a detailed condition should this
application be permitted.
But if we can discuss that later on.
But if I go through the presentation now,
that's probably best, I think.
For those who aren't familiar with Willicie,
The sites highlighted in yellow on the plant,
southwestern part of the village adjacent to the village's
development boundary.
It's within the Cotswolds National Landscape,
so the application site's in red.
It's the southern part of a larger field to the north of a
recently completed housing development known as Folly View.
The yellow line is the route of the public right -of -way that's
mentioned in the application report.
It's about 60 metres to the north of the application
site boundary. The proposed layout, which again, this is just purely illustrative and
indicative, the final layout will be resolved at the reserve matter stage should outline
permission be granted. But it gives an indication of density development, potential green infrastructure,
balancing ponds, public open space, play area, such like. The pre -application discussions
we had with the applicant, they initially proposed a 50 dwelling scheme, which would
have extended across the full field. We had concerns about the enclosure of the public
right of way and the breathing space around it, so the applicants revised that and come
back with a scheme for 30 and creating more green space around the development. And views
from the public right of way to the north looking back towards Willesee with the Cotswold
escarpment behind to the south and again the Folly View development to the south there.
Top left picture is the route of the proposed access point for the development which will
connect into the Folly View estate road which is shown in the bottom right. And a view of
the existing Folly View development from Broadway Road which is about eight or nine years old
now and the field as it was in 2015 before Folly View was built.
So the application site would be beyond those existing houses.
So it would largely be screened from Broadway Road by the existing houses.
In the report, I mentioned another development on an allocated site to the northeast.
So the blue dot is the allocated site where we've currently got an application for 60 houses in with us at the moment.
But we haven't reached a decision on that yet.
But it's just to put the two sites in context into, if you're considering cumulative levels of development.
And again, this is probably right away looking northwards across the village towards the red area.
It's broadly the site of the application which would be behind the poly -view development.
So again, it puts it in context looking from the higher land, looking across the valley of Evesham,
the village in the foreground.
And this is just a picture of the drainage scheme strategy that was put forward on Monday.
The applicants introduced additional swales into the scheme, a larger infiltration basin,
and indicated that surface water would drain to the north rather than the northeast.

8 25/02983/OUT - Land North of Folly View, Willersey

So it would be diverted away from existing village development, which largely lies to
the northeast.
So again, that's at the moment with the LLFA, and they are looking into that.
So thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:24:25
Thank you very much. So now can I ask the speakers to come forward. So for this
application we have got a speaker for the Town and Parish Council, Councillor
Jane Rinto. Thank you. Is that how you say your name? Good. Object to Mr. Roger Webb.
The applicant is Mr. Leeson. Then later on I'll ask Councillor Stowe to speak.
Right so, Councillor Rintle we'll start with you. You've got three minutes to speak.
Once you've started speaking my colleague Councillor Watson will be
Town/Parish Council - 0:25:26
timing you. Thank you. This statement supports the parish council submission
of the 14th of November 2025. We would also ask the Planning Committee to note
that this is one of two live planning applications regarding Willersey
totaling 90 dwellings.
Willasee has a population of approximately 900
and a housing stock of 495.
We've had a significant growth of houses
over the last 10 years.
The application being considered today
will further increase Willasee housing stock by 6%.
While the report describes this
as a not substantial 30 dwelling scheme,
it is in reality, as you have seen,
the second phase of a much larger encroachment.
This developer has already built 30 properties on the adjoining site.
If approved, this creates a consolidated dense block of 60 houses built over our natural countryside.
Taken together, this is a very substantial cumulative development within a nationally protected landscape.
The MPPF is unequivocal.
Major development in a national landscape should be refused unless there are exceptional circumstances and a proven public interest.
neither has been demonstrated in the report. Because the landscape harm is
clear and acknowledged the tilted balance does not apply. We also note that
the National Cotswolds Landscape Board remains firmly opposed. Critical to your
decision is the village's current status. The Planning Officer's report relies on
an outdated designation of Willesee as a principal settlement. However the
November 2025 settlement role and function study reclassifies Willesee as a
non -principal settlement. It is factually incorrect to justify urban scale expansion
based on a status the village no longer holds. Our infrastructure is not growing. In fact,
it is in decline. Our shop closed in 2020 and the nearest convenience store in Broadway
ceased trading last month. Our school is full in some key age groups with no physical capacity
to expand the existing building in a conservation area. NHS Gloucestershire's lack of comment
ignores reality that most residents are registered with GP services in Worcestershire and also
access acute services there, and that remains under extreme pressure.
With alley busses only operating at peak times, this development will inevitably increase
private car dependency.
This fails the green objectives of the NPPF 2025, which mandates the new housing must
reduce the need to travel by private car.
History shows that more houses have not saved our local facilities.
In fact, they have only strained them further.
Our existing infrastructure cannot cope with current demand, let alone 30 or more homes.
My fellow resident will now detail the critical and well -documented failures regarding our local sewage and water systems.
So in conclusion, we do not believe exceptional circumstances, local need, or lack of harm to the national landscape has been demonstrated.
we urge the Planning Committee to reject the application. Thank you.
Objector - 0:28:39
We fully support Willicie Parish Council's submission and the refusal request from National Landscape.
Their assessment alone provides substantial planning grounds for refusal.
There is also the matter of flooding and sewage that has affected Willicie for more than a decade.
with detailed photographs on the planning portal.
These are not theoretical risks.
They are live, documented failures of the existing infrastructure.
Two weeks ago, after a single day of rain,
7 Trent deployed road tankers for 36 hours
to prevent the Badsley Lane Pumping Station from being overwhelmed.
Last weekend, after two days of rain,
two standalone pumps and two 5 ,000 gallon temporary holding tanks were cited to protect the station and of course the village.
Photographs of this emergency set up have been sent to planning.
Against that background, section 10108 of the official officer's report states that the applicant is still in discussions with Gloucestershire Leed local flood authority
and that further information would be provided to this committee.
Some information was sent late yesterday, but the report itself concludes that without LLFA agreement, the scheme is unacceptable.
No agreement has been reached. Yet you are being asked to make a decision today without knowing the LLFA's position.
Now sewage and flooding in 7 Trent's statutory responsibility. But you now have clear evidence of the scale of this problem.
problem, and you are being asked to add to it. That is the material planning consideration.
We therefore ask you to reject this application. If members feel unable to do so today, there
is a legitimate procedural alternative. The Planning Officer has confirmed that the Committee
can require the application to return to the Commission once the LLFA's decision are known,
and once 7 Trent's plans are known.
The report says reference 7 Trent,
no development should take place until approved.
Thames Waters holding objection also requires that same condition,
as they cannot guarantee the water supply.
We have submitted wording to planning to ensure that Thames Waters conditions
also state no development can proceed until matters are resolved and approved.
Only with this information from the LFA, 7 Trent and Thames Water can members make a fully informed evidence -based decision.
However, we believe the planning grounds for refusal are clear, robust and compelling.
To protect the residents of Willersey, we refuse this application today.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:31:35
Applicant/Agent - 0:31:37
Thank you. Mr. Leeson. Thank you chair. My name is Ed Leeson and I'm a planning agent
for the applicant Eagle 1 Homes. Members will already be familiar with the detail of this
application so I'll focus on the key points. This is a modest edge of settlement site directly
related to the existing development boundary of Willersey. It is not an isolated incursion
into the countryside nor speculative sprawl but a contained extension to the village assessed
by officers is capable of appropriately accommodating development.
The scheme evolved in response to pre -application advice, reducing the number of homes from
50 to 30, almost halving the site area, pulling development away from the field's northern
boundary in response to landscape sensitivity.
Landscape considerations have shaped the layout from the outset and homes are set back from
the most sensitive edges, incorporating considerable open space and planting.
Submitted photo montages from agreed viewpoints demonstrate that the development would be
experienced in the context of existing housing
and not a separate or visually prominent form of development
and additional planting would help assimilate
the development into its surroundings.
Importantly, no objections have been raised
from technical consultees, including the Landscape Officer
and Highway Authority, and matters such as ecology,
trees, archeology, and amenity have all been shown
to be capable of being satisfactorily addressed
through conditions and reserve matters.
The applicant recognises the local concerns
regarding drainage and flood risk,
and the proposals have been subject
to detailed consideration and ongoing engagement with the lead local flood authority and 7
Trent Water. Additional work has been undertaken and submitted following discussions with the
LLFA, which demonstrates a robust sustainable drainage strategy can be delivered without
increasing flood risk elsewhere. Planning conditions would ensure that any necessary
upgrades to drainage infrastructure and which have been agreed with the applicant are secured
prior to occupation of the development and an extended timeframe for submitting reserve
the
community has been agreed to
enable this. Behind every application are young people,
families and those seeking to remain within their community
who need access to suitable and attainable homes and this scheme
represents a proportionate contribution towards meeting
that need with the inclusion of 12 affordable houses in a
district where affordability pressures are well recognised.
Section 106 agreement would secure tangible local benefits
additional benefits, including
contributions towards
education, local services and
community improvements.
Discussions are ongoing with
the parish Council regarding a
contribution towards village
hall improvements and the
applicant would like to assure
members that they commit to
agree to a financial
contribution for these works.
Members are asked to consider
this application in the current
planning context where the
district cannot present
currently present a 5 -year
housing land supply.
This scheme does not seek to exploit that position, however,
but offers a proportionate and limited contribution
towards meeting identified housing need.
In summary, this is a thoughtfully prepared
and policy led scheme,
which strikes a balance between landscape protection
and housing delivery,
bringing forward new homes and community benefits.
We respectfully ask members
to support the officer recommendation today
and grant outline plan and permission.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:34:28
Thank you very much.
If you'd like to return to your seats.
I just wanted to say, Mr. Leeson used to work here,
did you not?
It was a while ago.
So I think that some of us will have met him
in a professional capacity, but it was a while ago.
So that's okay.
Thanks.
Okay.
Councillor Stowe, you've got five minutes.
Do you want to come forward and take your place?
Ward Member - 0:35:12
Thank you, Chair, and thank you colleagues on the planning committee for considering
this application today, and to those who visited the site last week.
I would also like to thank Martin Perks.
I've been in discussion with Martin from a very early stage, and his detailed report
before us today demonstrates a clear understanding of the issues affecting
Willersey. There are something like 170 objections lodged against this
application. That level of response clearly indicates significant local
concern. These comments need to be taken seriously. I've spoken to several public
meetings in the village, a packed out village hall and the people of Willersey
are not NIMBYs. And on the whole we're actually pretty pragmatic about
development in the village. This is a community pulling together to raise real
and genuine serious issues. Flooding and drainage is a huge problem and let us be
clear 7 Trent has failed this village for many years. They seem to now be
actually surprised. The sewage network is demonstrably unfit for purpose even for
existing homes let alone new developments. However they've known about
these issues for 20 years. I've been stood on Colin Lane in periods of
A main highway manhole cover weighing in the region of 20 -25 kilos has been blown clear
by pressure in the system, 25 metres down the road.
It is sheer luck that no one has been seriously injured.
There's flood water infused with raw sewage a foot deep in the road, seemingly flowing
into other watercourses.
Residents gardens are left contaminated with raw sewage and toilet waste.
Homes experience backing up in the network meaning that residents are unable to use their
toilets for up to 48 hours at a time.
This is the reality on the ground.
7Trent has confirmed it has concerns that investigations are ongoing and that no investment
is currently planned.
Yet this development would still have a right to connect to this already failing network.
In recent days they have been reliant on tankers to pump and remove excess water from the system.
Regrettably it appears that these issues alone are not sufficient grounds to refuse an application
of this type.
I am therefore grateful that the Officer has taken these concerns seriously.
If this application is approved it is absolutely essential that the strongest possible pre -commencement
conditions are imposed to prevent worsening flood risk or pollution elsewhere in the village.
New development cannot be allowed to make an existing crisis worse.
I would also ask the Committee to consider how those conditions will be enforced in practise.
How will compliance be monitored?
What happens if modelling, investigations or infrastructure upgrades are delayed or
prove inadequate?
Do we as a Council have the resources to ensure that these conditions are not merely words
on paper but real safeguards for residents?
Members should also carefully scrutinise the impacts of this proposal on the Cotswold National
landscape.
We are all aware of the situation regarding the local plan and housing supply numbers
imposed by government.
However, this does not mean a free -for -all for developers to build anywhere.
The National Planning Policy Framework is clear and still gives great weight to the
importance of designated protected areas and explicitly states that development may still
be refused where the harm to a protected area such as the national landscape provides a
clear reason for doing so.
There is also a serious question as to whether this proposal constitutes major development
within the Cotswold National Landscape.
The National Landscape Board in their consultee response indicate that it should be considered
as such.
This is a critical point because paragraph 190 of the MPPF is clear.
Planning permission for major development in designated national landscapes should be
refused except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated that development
is in the public interest.
Paragraph 190 of the MPPF states that defining major development is not a matter of housing
numbers alone, but one of judgement taking into account the nature, scale and setting
of the development.
Footnote 67 places that responsibility with you as the decision -makers.
The fact that this proposal is smaller than a previously proposed scheme does not in
itself mean it cannot still be a major development in national landscape terms.
Incremental expansion at sensitive village edges is a recognised threat
identified in the landscape character assessment. The national landscape
designation carries with it a statutory duty that we as a local planning
authority must uphold. Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000
require us to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural
beauty of the Cotswold National Landscape. I therefore urge members not to
simply accept the conclusions reached in the report but to robustly test whether
the balance of harm and benefit genuinely justifies development in this
location. To consider whether this proposal meets the threshold of major
developments and if so whether the stringent tests of paragraph 190 of the
EPF, including need, alternatives, and public
interests, have truly been met.
Thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:40:07
Dr. Nancy Cox -McPhee Thank you very much, Councillor.
We will move on to the disc. Oh, sorry. We had a site inspection briefing. Of course we did
And council Coleman you were there. Would you like to give us your opinion?
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:40:42
Yes, thank you chair a beautiful day and
Some impressive views from the site towards the Cotswold
escarpment
the
Expansion of the village
proposed by this building next to a modern development and an obvious link
that was all clear to us and I think the point that struck me most strongly was
that I had not expected a national landscape site to be of this nature.
It looked not very different to perhaps dozens of other sites in the Cotswolds
which have relatively modern buildings on relatively low -lying land.
Yes, you can see nice places from them, but they don't particularly add to the landscape themselves.
So I fell back to thinking, have we found a place that perhaps is very fortunate to be in the national landscape,
and whether I should be asking questions or not later, taking our time to identify
why we can make an exception in this case to the normal no chance. I mentioned
this point at length because my own ward is surrounded, well not surrounded, but
borders national landscape, historic parkland and protected land and nobody
ever comes forward with housing developments onto those parts of the
national landscape and similar protected areas so why do they do it here and why
do we allow it and why have we perhaps allowed it in the past? Questions which
which perhaps aren't relevant to today, but maybe they'll come up later.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:42:23
Feel free to raise questions during that portion of the discussion.
Councillor Fowles, you are also there.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:42:31
Thank you, Chairman. I thought it was fantastic that we were able to go on site visit when we finally found it,
having gone to Folly View and everywhere else in Willersie.
I concur with a lot of what my colleague has said.
The thing that struck me was I think the reduction on the site from 50 houses to 30 and the negotiation that's taken place
between
The agent and the case officer as he explained it and the fact that the site's been as it were
pushed south to make sure that the footpath etc was
Well and truly collect
Protected was was very significant
I also, when the ward member pointed out that we should walk along the footpath and look
up at the escarpment and the beautiful view there, how striking the site was.
However, when it comes to questions and comments, particularly the LFA comments and the comments
have been made by all the speakers apart from the agent and particularly the ward member,
I have got serious concerns because it was very wet there.
It wasn't a wet day, but the field was absolutely saturated,
and some of the questions that had been asked by the LLFA,
I'd like to get some clarification on.
But in terms of a site, I thought it was,
if I use the words, an ideal site,
it was a good site for an extension,
but I have major concerns that I'll talk about later.
Thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:44:04
Thank you very much.
We look forward to hearing further questions from you.
Thank you.
Councillor Judd.
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:44:12
Thank you, Cher. So we approached the site not from where, if it was built out, from where the cars would come, from behind, down a public footpath, over a bridge.
And there was a, what do you call it, a sort of, anyway, water drainage. It sounded like a stream, but it wasn't a stream, it's a drainage system, isn't it, on the right hand?
And that was gushing.
The footpath itself was sodden, and we all got filthy shoes.
I would rather have worn wellies anyway,
but I managed to clean my shoes.
But the bottom part of the site, which
is not designated for the building, was absolute.
It was a pond.
It was very wet.
And to hear storeys of sewage already flowing around
And everything else the other members have said about the site visit, you know, looking
up the escarpment and things, it is a beautiful view and it's a beautiful escarpment.
It gets better as you walk back, you know, walk away from the village.
And it was a nice day.
But it had been torrential.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:45:24
Thank you very much.
I was also there.
It was indeed extremely interesting to see the site.
And Mr. Perks explained to us exactly where the house would be and how the view from the
footpath across to the escarpment, which is really very lovely, would be protected by
the siting of the houses, et cetera, et cetera.
It was, as you said, very useful to walk further along the footpath.
But of course, the things that people are raising as objectors are things that weren't
immediately visible to us actually doing the site inspection briefing, whether the effect
of extra population on the village and the effect of extra population on the sewage network.
So those are things that we're going to be discussing now in the debate, I'm sure.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:46:06
Okay, who has questions? I'm sure there'll be a lot.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:46:16
I'd really like to ask the case officer, I'd like to thank the case officer again for his
briefing both today and on the site was extremely useful but the letter that
we've received in the papers from the from Gloucestershire County Council and
the leading local flood authority and the comments that they're making bottom
of page 11 about more information should be provided given that this is an
outline application and that's my concern it's an outline application yet
there seem to be real concerns about drainage.
And I wondered what advice the officers can give us on that.
Because all too often in the past,
we are encouraged to permit sites subject to,
you know, further information, et cetera.
But this seems to me to be quite an extreme situation
when you listen to the comments from residents,
not just about flooding,
but the letter from the LLFA is about flooding.
But I also have comments about sewerage.
So my first question is the LFA letter,
and the second question is 7 Trent and Sewerage,
and what the update is on that.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Oh, can you just turn your mic on?
Thank you.
Officer - 0:47:35
Yes, I mean, the letter from in the late page,
in additional pages is from lead local authorities
dated the 29th of October.
So it was issued to them initially
in response to the application.
The subsequent correspondence,
The addendum provided by the applicant on the additional
pages is provided in response to that, and they're having ongoing
discussions with the LLFA about what needs to be done to ensure
that the strategy, drainage strategy, can be developed in a
way that will be appropriate going forward and won't cause
drainage problems.
As you say, this is an outline application, so we're not going
to get a detailed drainage scheme at this particular
moment, we're just getting a drainage strategy, which would
be if it was acceptable, then we'd attach conditions which
would require detailed drainage schemes, sustainable drainage
measures, sustainable drainage maintenance and management,
details as well, all which would be submitted as part of future
condition compliance.
But the strategy is really just to establish that mechanisms
can be put in place, such as attenuation, swales, controlled
rates, permeable paving, and directs the flow of surface
water into a certain direction.
So in a manner that will ensure that the rate surface water flows from the site won't be above existing green field rates
when you also take into account a 40 % increase to address extreme rainfall arising from climate change.
So new development schemes should be designed so water is dealt with, surface water is dealt with on site
and the surface water leaving the site should not be any greater than the existing green field runoff rates.
And that's what the strategy is aiming to do at the moment.
So it's not uncommon for these things to take a little while.
There's a bit of back and forth between both parties.
So we think, yes, as you said, it's something very often we get
a recommendation of no objection subject to a consultee.
They are the strategy body responsible for looking
after surface water.
So we are in their hands.
They're the specialists in this respect.
They're aware of the concerns raised by local residents,
because I forward on various comments to them about the
issues that are being raised.
And they've also raised issues as well about the accuracy of some of the details initially of where the water would flow to.
Because the surface level, the land level of the site drops about three metres from south to north.
And that's why we got some of that pooling of the water in that northern part of the field.
But as put forward, clearly there is scope there to do a proper drainage strategy that seems to work.
But we just need confirmation from the lead local flood authority that that is acceptable in principle.
And I say if that comes back from them with no objection, I would then go to the ward
members and we'd go through with the ward manager, explain it to them with any conditions,
and they could then confirm whether they consider that to be acceptable or potentially want
it to come back to committee.
Equally, you can defer the application if you wanted to.
But at the moment, I think that the situation is ongoing.
There's nothing there that leads me to think that it can't be overcome.
If I thought that there was issues here that just could not be overcome, then I think we'd
be recommending refusal.
but I don't think that's the case here.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:50:39
A couple of minutes, if I may.
Are you saying we're waiting to hear back formally from the LLFA
in the light of their conversations with the developer
so that we don't currently have a letter that says
we accept the proposals and we are happy with them?
The additional pages is the original consultee letter from 29th of October.
Yeah, that's 25th.
The additional information provided by the applicant,
which appears on the...
is the applicant's response to that letter
That is within the LLFA at the moment and they are waiting for the LLFA.
They are going to look at it this week or next week, so then my understanding.
But as of this moment we don't have anything.
We don't have a formal no objection from them.
And what about 7TRAN?
And the horror storeys that we heard today about sewage.
We do fully sympathise with the local residents.
Officer - 0:51:35
As a local planning authority we are in a slightly tricky position
because ultimately that matter of connexion to a failed drainage network is a matter for
7 Trent Water and it's for them to deal with through the applicant.
And that's why I've quoted an appeal in there where a planning inspector from 20 miles up
the road with 7 Trent Water where a planning inspector also raised that as an issue.
Also 7 Trent Water have raised no objections subject to condition because they technically
can't object because it's their responsibility to connect the development to their system
and ensure the capacity is there.
As a planning authority, what we can do is put a mechanism in place, such as the condition I recommended,
that ensures that there's no occupation or no commencement until we're reasonably satisfied that measures have been put in place to address those particular matters.
We can't object to it, though, but we can put a mechanism in place.
So that should hopefully provide some assurances to the local residents that we are going to put measures in place.
There shouldn't be any occupation until a phasing
programme agreed between the developer and Seven Trend
Water has been agreed, and that will therefore ensure that
the situation isn't made any worse.
From what I understand, Seven Trend Water is still looking at
the matters overall to identify what the particular problems
are, but the email I read earlier from this morning
indicates it seems to be not a capacity issue in terms of
foul drainage.
If it was working just as foul drainage, the issue seems to be
that surface water is infiltrating or getting into
that system and then causing problems. That's a matter of the 7 -tran water
under their legislation to resolve. But as long as we have the condition
recommended in the report we can feel comfortable there are mechanisms in in
any decision that would ensure that that would not get any worse if this
application was permitted.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:53:15
Thank you very much. Before we go on can I just cheque that everyone sitting at the
back can hear okay? Would you just nod if you can?
but we haven't been able to hear Mr. Perks hardly explain.
Lean closer to the microphone maybe.
We'll move it closer. Will it go?
Perfect. Thank you. We'll adjust the position of the mic and hope it works.
So, Councillor Bridges.
Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:53:42
Okay, it's a very similar question.
When you were reading out the recommendation, you were using the old one rather than the recommendation changed to.
and in the first sentence says subject to no objection from Gloucestershire
County lead local flood authority. I don't know whether it's important for
you to read out the the up -to -date recommendation and I was going to say
well if we're going to have a response back within the next couple of weeks
then won't we be in a better position to answer this next month? So in other
words could it be deferred to next month? Because I'd love to hear what the local
lead authority says?
Officer - 0:54:23
Well, we mentioned determine applications as quickly and as
expediently as possible.
Normally, this is a matter that is just normally dealt with
under delegated approval.
They would just send a letter back saying no objection
and listed conditions.
That's probably all we would get back from them.
There wouldn't be much detail other than that, I would imagine.
If they come back saying we want further information, then we're
not going to permit it anyway.
So I just think it's whether it needs that given I don't know
what the content of their email would actually, or their
response would actually add at the end of the day, if it simply
just says no objection with some conditions.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:55:03
Councillor Judd.
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:55:06
Thank you, Chair.
Well, I'm going to slightly pick up on that and just expand
on it a bit.
But the trouble is, giving conditions today on when we haven't got the information, if
hypothetically we approve this application today and those conditions come in, the results
of those conditions could have actually affected our decision.
So how, you can't go back on a decision, we all know that.
So if the conditions can't be met, I mean, I just wonder if this application hasn't come
to us too early.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:55:47
I think it would be up to members to decide.
If members feel they don't have sufficient information in front of them to make a decision,
that's obviously you are the decision makers, you have the right to defer that application.
I think as Martin has said, the recommendation is permit subject to, no objection being raised
by the LLFA.
If the LLFA raise an objection, we won't be then permitting application because it is
subject to we would either bring it back here with an amended recommendation or
email well have to seek further clarification further information from
the developers and then again that may come back in front of members then
members could have the alternative could be to add in effectively delegating or
authority to officers to agree that when the LFA responses are received and then
in discussion with the chair and vice chair we could ensure that they're
satisfied that the other fake comments reflect the views of the committee but
Ultimately, it is for members' decision.
If you're not comfortable making a decision today
because you don't feel there's enough information,
you have the right to defer.
If you feel that actually you want an added
sort of process in there where it is in consultation
with the chair and vice chair,
members can include that in their recommendation.
So it is for you as the decision makers
to make that decision.
But Martin's recommendation is fundamentally
that assuming that response comes back,
no objection with conditions,
he's satisfied and he's confident that that will be the case.
Effectively, he's satisfied that it completes
is proceed on that basis.
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:57:03
Thank you for your response.
I mean, you slightly tied me up in the notes there, Harrison.
But I mean, I hear what you say.
But we're also waiting to hear from seven trend.
There's quite a lot of this.
And what you said just now, assume,
came up too many times for my comfort.
I'm going to pursue a different, if you don't mind, chair.
I'm just, can I, can you clarify what you think is the demonstration of public interest?
Because if this is a major development in the Cotswold National Landscape, you have
to demonstrate that.
Is that what's in the recommendation, the Section 106 and the library and the community?
Is that, presumably that ticks that box, does it?
Officer - 0:57:52
The clarification, we don't consider this to be major development in the AONB for purposes
is paragraph 190 of the MPPF, sorry.
The Cotswolds National Landscape Board
aren't a statutory consortee.
They've just given their views on the proposal.
They've indicated the impact from the escarpment
would be minor.
Their main concern is about the impact from the public right
away to the north and the closure of the site.
We take a different view.
We've got an independent landscape consultant
who's looked at it and considers it to be acceptable.
In the context of major development
in the Cotswolds National Landscape,
got paragraph 190, footnote 67 of the MPPF say,
major development is a matter for the decision maker
taking into account its nature, scale, and setting,
and whether it could have significant adverse impact
on the purposes for which the area is designated.
The key there is significant adverse impact,
not just an adverse impact, it's significant.
And taking into account its nature, scale, and setting.
Well, in this instance, it's residential next to two sides by post -war housing.
So it's residential nature.
I don't think there's an issue there.
Scale, we're talking 30 houses on a bit against adjacent to a principal settlement on a field
that doesn't have any particular landscape characteristics.
No features, no trees, no ridge of furrow on the site.
So again, it's very limited in terms of what the nature of the site is.
Scale again, as I've mentioned, 30 houses in the context of a settlement with 992 houses
is considered not to be major and at the setting again as I've mentioned it's
adjacent to two borders on two sides by post -war housing it's not readily
visible from the Cotswold escarpment views through the site will still be
achievable from the public rights -of -way there's a low density northern edge to
the development the western edge is quite open with landscaping so in that
context we don't think it particularly affects views back to the Cotswold
escarpment in the context of existing housing so we don't think it therefore
qualifies as major development and you don't have to go through the exceptional circumstances test.
Harm to an AMB, Scottswood National Landscape can be a strong reason to refuse an application,
but in this context where it is we don't think that would in itself represent a strong reason
to refuse the application, especially when you bear in mind the need and where we are with our
housing delivery and the need to deliver new housing and 12 affordable houses as well which
would be delivered as part of this scheme. So there are significant benefits
that in this context we consider outweigh that impact on the national
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:00:30
Officer - 1:00:34
landscape. 85 % of our district is Cotswolds National Landscape. We wouldn't be able to build any
housing at all. There has to be some exceptions that we make and we look at
it on a case -by -case basis and there are as mentioned by Councillor Coleman earlier.
This site is very different from the Field to the North.
The Field to the North has covered in trees, it's very extensive ridge and furrow on it.
It's far more characterful and far more interest.
This site really has very little in the way of any landscape interest to it,
other than the fact by its nature it is in the Cotswolds National Landscape.
But in the context of the Cotswolds National Landscape,
this is probably one of the lower sensitivity sites.
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:01:12
Just very quickly, when you were talking about the North as a site,
you talking about the blue dot on that plan that you were showing is that what
Officer - 1:01:21
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:01:22
you know that's the allocated site on the other side of the village it was
just the other side of the bound of trees we saw I think on the other side
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:01:29
Councillor Joe Harris - 1:01:33
of the footpath wasn't it no thanks a counsellor Harris thank you chair I want
to move away from flooding if I may and drainage and talk about the parish
Council's comments around the status as a principal settlement so
quite a lot was given on that in the in the parish councils representation so
Martin could you just pick that up and just talk us through Harrison what the
context is and what the situation actually is and then I've got another one
Officer - 1:02:05
more question on housing after if I may. Yes thank you. Just to clarify the
The starting point is the current local plan.
Willacy is designated as a principal settlement
in the local plan, and that will continue to be the case
until we adopt a new local plan
or the new local plan gets to a point
where it's almost at examination
past the public consultation phase.
We're not at there yet.
Clearly, as part of the local plan process,
there is a review of all the settlements,
and some will, some of the principal settlements
probably will no longer be a principal settlement.
We'll see what is indicated as being one of those.
It will be downgraded.
But that is something for the future.
It hasn't been resolved.
It carries very limited weight at the moment.
In terms of looking at this application, you have to set it
on the brands that it is a principal settlement and
wherein development, residential development can be acceptable.
It's a level and a size that can reasonably accommodate a
certain level of development, which we think this is of a
scale which can be.
Clearly, in the future going forward, Willersey may not be a principal settlement, but we're
going to have to look at that in the context of the amended MPPF as well, in terms of what
that brings forward.
So there's a lot of ifs, buts and maybes going forward, and very few of them can be carried
any significant way to the moment.
We just have to look at where we are.
The starting point is the development plan, and Willersey is still a principal settlement.
Thank you.
Councillor Joe Harris - 1:03:27
And then, if I may, a question on affordable housing.
So if I'm reading it right, this is delivering 40%.
40 % of the scheme is affordable housing, of which six are for social rent and then a couple of slightly different tenures.
Can you just confirm that there are 55 households in Willersie or the neighbouring parishes that are in need of affordable housing?
Officer - 1:03:50
Yes, that was the advice from the housing officer looking at housing needs at the moment, so yes.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:03:59
Okay, I had a question so I'll stop myself in here. A couple of things. First of all,
you mentioned briefly that the Cotswold National Landscape Board was not a statutory consultee
because their evidence that their report that they put in is really quite damning about
the effect on the Cotswold National Landscape. So because they're not a statutory consultee,
what weight does their opinion carry? Does it carry no weight whatsoever?
Officer - 1:04:25
It carries weight just as anybody's objections carry weight but they're not
technically statutory consuls. These are not somebody we have to consult. They give
their views and because they are a body and I mean it's important we have
formed it they have a Cotswold National Landscape Management Plan which this
council which I've referred to in the officer report which has policies in it
which we have agreed we will take into account and our material consideration
So, in that respect, their views probably carry a certain degree
away, but they're not the same, as I say, as statutory
counsel would be, but clearly they have policies in their
national management plan, which we have to have regard to, and
I've referred to some of those in the report, and we, as we're
looking at it as officers, we don't consider it conflicts
with those policies.
So, we've just taken a different, we take a, reach a
different conclusion than they have, both themselves and the
landscape consultant, we engage to look at it as well.
He thinks it's acceptable in landscape terms.
So it's a difference of opinion, but from our professional point
of view, our independent landscape consultant as well,
we all consider it to be acceptable in this respect.
I mean, they did also consider that the views from the
escarpment along the Ragerie Road were minor.
The main issue appears to be the context and views from that
public footpath and views back to the escarpment.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:05:43
That seems to be one of their main concerns.
So where they've said that they think that the effect on the
landscape constitutes a strong reason for refusal. We just disagree with them
Officer - 1:05:53
and our officers disagree with them and that's that. Yeah, with the reasons I had
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:05:57
in our report, yeah. Just briefly, do we need to take into account the
cumulative effect? A lot of the objections have been about the number of
developments with Planning Commission coming up in Willersey. Do we need to,
Is that a material consideration when we're looking at this application?
Officer - 1:06:18
I've addressed it to a certain degree in the report.
We have an ongoing application for 60 houses on the allocated site to the northeast next to the industrial estate.
So I have addressed the cumulative impact in that
report inside my report
It's important to note that one hasn't yet reached a recommendation. So
if this is permitted we would take that the numbers proposed there because the
numbers proposed on that site are above the allocation so we'd look at that in
context with this one when we deal with that one going forward but at the moment
simply saying we have an allocated site so we should have no more isn't in
itself a reason to refuse this application because the level of numbers
is houses is not sufficient we think to be harmful to the village or other
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:07:03
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:07:06
facilities. Thank you very much. Councillor Coleman. Thank you chair. I just wanted to
cheque something in paragraph 1072 and subsequent sub -polygraphs we've got some
of the inspectors views when allowing on appeal the existing Folly view
development back in 2015 when I'm pretty certain I wasn't on this committee. Was
that appeal or does anybody know against an officer refusal or a committee refusal? I
Officer - 1:07:38
bet you know. Yes, I dealt with it. I reckon it was for 20 houses. I recommended it for
approval came to committee. It was a split decision. It was the chairman's casting vote
that refused it and then it went to appeal and was allowed. Did we did we lose costs
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:07:58
as well. It didn't go for costs. Slightly more relevant perhaps. We've got a bunch of
pages at the front of this of a type I've not seen before. Lots of, I'm trying to find
them now. It's to do with the flooding and it's in the supplementary document from page
17 through to page 23 with all kinds of abbreviations. I recognise Eastings and Northings, not much
steps possibly lots of some colour coding to help us do we have members of our
district council staff who understand these tables and are any of them in the
Officer - 1:08:38
room because it's major development not for purposes the A &B but for
registration purposes it's doubt surface water is dealt with by the lead local
flood authority not by our drainage engineers so they don't get involved
Although we keep them informed, so if they've got local knowledge, they get in touch with the LLFA,
but we wouldn't normally go to them on this matter because it's not something they would normally
deal with. They deal with land drainage consent issues, so if this applicant wants to do culvertine
or connecting to adjacent waterworks, then the applicant will need separate land drainage
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:09:17
consent, which we would deal with, but that's a separate matter. More significantly, the local
member in his usual extremely professional and effective way,
illustrated the difficulties already existing with penetration of domestic
water into the where it shouldn't go. I always get it mixed up, but flooding up
to a certain depth in the streets. There is no way is there that this application
whether it's approved or not approved can make much of an impact on that
situation because it's so grave already or am I being too pessimistic?
Officer - 1:09:54
You can't use a planning application to address existing issues you can just
ensure that things don't get any worse so that's what we're looking at to make
sure things don't get any worse. As I've said already the development should
ensure that surface water is dealt with primarily on site, constrained on
site and then released at a controlled rate so it should not therefore once a
strategy is agreed and a scheme is agreed, it should not therefore increase surface water
flows beyond that you already see from the existing site.
So pooling in high rainfall, it's not unusual to see pooling of water on sites, especially
if you've got like a clay soil or whatever, it's not unusual.
But you just, what you normally do, you'd have swales or attenuation pond which would
direct that water to certain areas and collect it there before releasing it rather than it
just having spread across the site.
So, yeah, all these type of things, it's what we expect new developers to do nowadays.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:10:54
This is to do with actual money. We were advised, I think at the start of today's discussion
that the parish council have somewhat reduced their request for funding for the village
hall, which I suppose is welcome to the developer. But more significantly, there's a large sum,
I'm not going to quote it, but it's as often in these cases,
requested by the county council, particularly for school places.
Now you and I and the rest of the world, in the Cotswolds at least,
are probably aware that we have in this country a continuing
significant decline in fertility and birth rates,
which recently resulted in this council agreeing,
I think unanimously if it was at the committee,
that the Steddings development could continue to something like
thousand houses before they need to think about building a school. This was
at the request of the other schools in my town of Sire and Cessna who have hundreds
of empty places due to the fall in the birth rate. It strikes me that the
developer might be keen to get the county council to recheck its figures
since it may be asking for money, the county council this is, for school places
that it's already actually got?
Officer - 1:12:08
Just to clarify, the contribution is to secondary 16
to 18 year olds.
So there's quite a few people going through the system before
they get.
I think the issue is that we're not really getting requests
for primary education contributions at the moment, because
since COVID the birth rates fallen off quite a lot.
So there's not many people coming in, little people coming
into primary schools, but there's still people from years
ago get into 16 and 18.
And that's why the capacity issue that is largely at that
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:12:36
Thank you very much indeed.
Councillor Caul.
Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:12:39
Thank you, Chair. Just a couple of questions for clarity.
900 residents in Willers -Lee, 170 objections. Is that a high percentage in your experience?
And secondly, the applications located outside the Willers -Lee development boundary,
and on page 59 we talk about new build, open market housing, will not be permitted outside principal and principal settlements
unless it's in accordance with other policies that expressly deal with
residential development in such locations what what is the reasoning for
that and what are the exceptional circumstances and are the other two
applications that you mentioned are they within the Willers -Lee development
Officer - 1:13:24
boundary whereas this one is not I can't speak for the percentage of proportion
of objections relevant to the population of the village. It varies from one application
to the next. Just the number of objections or support isn't necessarily a guide to how
an application should be determined. It's ultimately down to the planning merits of
the scheme. So that's what we have to look at first and foremost. As satay in the report,
yes it's adjacent outside of development boundary but we don't have a land supply at the moment.
So therefore, policy to DS2 is out of date.
We have to judge each application on its merits,
weighing the pros and cons, the benefits arising from the housing
against any potential landscape impacts.
As I've said, harm to the CNL can be a strong reason to refuse
it, but we don't think that in this instance that's sufficient
to outweigh the benefits arising from the new housing and
particularly the affordable homes.
There's the allocated site is the other one I referred
to earlier.
that's allocated for 49 in the northeast part of the village.
That's only a guide figure.
There's an application amount for 60.
There's an allocated site in the centre of the village
for five, a garage site.
So that's 54 altogether.
So this is for 30.
So even if you add two together,
you're only going over by about 41.
So in the context of an extra 41 villages,
we think 41 dwellings, we think we'll see a size
that can accommodate that level of development.
if you were talking about an additional 200 or something I think we'd be having
far more concerns and we compare it to somewhere like
Nickleton at the moment he's got applications for 170 95 60 another
hundred coming in we couldn't got application about four or five hundred
houses at the moment so in the context of that we think this is a level that is
appropriate for the settlement
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:15:15
Councillor Fels, did you have another question?
Yes, did you have another question?
Councillor David Fowles - 1:15:21
Very specific question.
Page 36, 113, it is referred to as a holding objection from Severn Trent.
Parish Council notes that Severn Trent have requested a holding objection.
Is that accurate? Is that still the case?
I know we're returning to the subject of flooding, bearing in mind we've talked about other things about flooding and sewage.
I'm not familiar with the term holding objection.
Yeah, initially, because of all the concerns raised,
7 Trend Water wanted to look into more detail into the issues that were arising in terms of this development and other housing schemes.
that were coming forward across the whole of this northern part of the district.
So they put the whole in objection so they could look into it.
The response, we've got a later response which I've included in a report from Thames Water,
which raises we cannot object. We've got issues, but we cannot object, and therefore we're requesting a condition.
I've modified that condition based on an appeal from up the road near Pershaw, which an inspector used,
and therefore that deals with failed drainage scheme prior to commencement being agreed.
So that's where we are.
The same trend water I can confirm have raised no objection subject to condition.
Because they can't technically reject because they have a duty to connect development to their system.
Sorry, it's getting too soft again.
Well I haven't quite finished, if I may.
I'm a long serving member of this committee in various guises.
We hear that as a sort of mantra of statutory consultees.
And if we were minded to defer this, could we use as our basis
our concerns relating to the current status of the LFA
and their concerns about flooding and the situation with regards to it?
I hear what you're saying, Martin, about 30 houses.
as a Patrick Coleman said, would this actually add to a already very, very significant and
serious problem in the village, but would there be grounds to defer it based on our
concerns relating to sewage, foul water and flooding, but particularly sewage and foul
water?
Officer - 1:17:48
I think you'd be on tricky ground if you tried to refuse it on foul ground.
I wasn't saying diffuse.
I was saying defer.
But you're not going to get another response from 7 Tram Water. Their response is no objection.
So deferring it isn't going to get a different response from 7 Tram Water.
Okay, thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:18:07
Councillor Bridges, did you have another question?
Councillor Nick Bridges - 1:18:11
I'm looking at page 14 where there's a blue triangle.
I am guessing that the houses underneath the blue triangle are the affordable housing for
poor people.
I am guessing that is the land which is most at risk of water tables rising and surface
water flooding.
Is it essential that we include that land in this development?
It does seem a bit unfair that we're potentially giving affordable housing to people who basically
have very little choice in terms of moving.
Officer - 1:18:58
That's the part of the site that's identified as risk of flooding from surface water.
The site that holds Blood Zone 1, which is the lowest designation, but within that there's
areas that potentially could be at risk of flooding from surface water.
it may just be a few millimetres, it may be slightly deeper.
The applicant's done some profiles, cross sections there,
looking at levels and things like that to demonstrate
how this development can be accommodated in a way
that won't pose a risk to those households.
You can increase finished floor levels and things like that
and permeable surfaces.
So that's all something that will be looked again
by the LLFA and therefore you put in mechanisms
to ensure that that isn't going to harm any future occupiers
in that particular area of the site.
It's all part of your overall drainage strategy, drainage plan that will be finally resolved.
Thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:19:50
If there's no more questions, we'll move on to comments, debates, whatever you like to
call it.
Councillor Harris.
Councillor Joe Harris - 1:19:55
Thank you, Chair.
I think on this issue of flooding and drainage, I mean, it's an issue with every application
we face, isn't it?
and for any any type of housing whether it's one or two dwellings or
Or a scheme like this or thousands of dwellings, and I think you know
We talk a lot about water companies of the minute don't we we hear a lot about it in the press
I think this is the one side that is the most frustrating for
Communities isn't it they can see a network that isn't coping
But through the planning system. There's absolutely no mechanism to do anything about that
because we're subject to the comments of Temple Water or
Seven Trent or whoever the local water company could be.
And, you know, who are we to go against their expert advice,
they would say.
But, you know, so I'm very sympathetic to the arguments
that the parish council and the objectives have made.
I totally agree.
I think it's madness that we haven't got a significant
investment in upgrading existing infrastructure in sewage,
in our sewage and drainage network,
not just in Willersie but across the Cotswolds.
Unfortunately, that's the situation that we're in and,
you know, we're in a very tricky position, aren't we,
if we go against what a statutory consultee says and
the likelihood it will go to appeal and we will lose.
So, you know, I think the first thing to say is I do totally
understand the concerns of residents and the parish council
in Willersie.
However, you know, we have to look at it through the MPPF,
we have to look at it through our local plan and we have to
look at it through the planning system, and we're here to judge
applications based on their merit and based on the planning
rules in front of us.
And actually, when I look at it through that, guys, I think
this is a good application.
I think it is a natural extension to Willa Zee, albeit
I get the desire of the development zone, but we have
to ask ourselves the question, don't we?
We have to ask ourselves the question then.
If not sites like this, then where are we going to put them?
I remind colleagues of the context that we face ourselves
Our new housing target is 20 ,000 over the course of the next
couple of decades.
So, you know, my message to residents is we're going to get
more applications like this, so we have to be really careful
about the ones that we refuse because there will be probably
applications not too far from Willowsie that are more
egregious than this and cause much more concern.
So that's just a, you know, that's just an observation.
I think this is a natural extension.
I agree there are issues around drainage and flooding, but for
reasons I've just outlined you know we're subject to the comments of the
lead local flood authority and indeed the the water companies and if this is
passed it is with a condition that we hear back from the lead local flood
authority so if they don't think it's acceptable then it won't be permitted so
that sort of sort that solves that issue I think. I want to talk quickly about
affordable housing. We have a affordable housing crisis in this district. We have
people festering on housing waiting lists with nowhere to live. We have 50
people within the community of Willersie and the neighbouring parishes who are
wasting away without a home on waiting lists. They're in unsuitable private
rented accommodation and other forms of unacceptable accommodation and we have a
duty to them as much as we do to listen to the objections and concerns of
residents already living here. And if this is permitted these will be your
neighbours of the future, these will be the people that help make your community
I think that is worth saying so I do understand of course the concerns are a
flooded and sewage but we have to look at the bigger picture we have to look at
the policy context we have to look at the planning context we have to look at
the affordable housing and the housing crisis context of this so you know I'd
like to propose that we permit this for the reasons just given and I'd look for
a seconder on that.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:23:51
Councillor Judge? Oh, sorry. You were there.
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:23:56
I've got some really good news for you, Martin, and I think it's been so difficult in the
first place. I think the fact it does look, I agreed with what Councillor Fowles was saying
one. It's flat land and as Martin says it's got housing on two sides and it's only for
30 houses and I actually like the layout. I like the fact there's lots of green space.
I think it's thoughtfully and respectfully done. It respects the way people actually
would like to live. I like the fact that it's a mix of affordable and social. It's not millionaires'
as houses built bringing all the wrong sort of houses
into what we see over and over and over again
in this committee room.
And I don't believe that the views of the escarpment
will be affected by,
I really thought about the levels of the roofing
in comparison to the escarpment.
And I don't believe that the views of the escarpment
from the footpath would be affected at all.
I obviously am massively concerned about the endless assumptions and queries about the
drainage and the horror storeys that the parish, sorry the District Councillor Tom Stowe
said which are obviously true because we can see that it's a very wet area and I think I'm going
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:25:49
second Councillor Harris's recommendation to approve. Before we move on to the vote
I've got a couple of other people who'd like to speak. Councillor Watson I think
Councillor Ian Watson - 1:25:59
you were going to second it. Julie thank you. I was going to second. I'm not
on page 109, number eight, we've got the
prior to commencement of the development
of our water drainage scheme shall be submitted and approved.
That's our backstop.
If they can't do that, then I agree.
I do sympathise, every town and village in the Cotswold
has got 17th century drainage and water companies who don't invest.
So you're really not alone, but I think that backstop is worth something
and I would support this motion to permit.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:26:53
Thank you, sorry.
Councillor Judge, just picture at the post a second.
Councillor Fowls, do you have a comment?
Yes.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:27:02
Well, I hear what Councillor Harris said and he has a reputation of speaking very clearly
and very accurately about our duty to our residents and obviously we have a local plan
target and we're well aware of that. However, I think that I was elected to look after the
of my community and their health and their wellbeing.
And for me, that overrides everything else.
And I've just been looking at the definition
of what government and local government is all about.
And when you get the level of,
go back to what Councillor Coors said,
when you get nearly 200 people out of the community
of 900 people expressing real concerns.
And I, although I'd never lived in Willersley,
I did actually work in Willersley for four years.
and I'm aware of some of those horror storeys.
And I'm struggling because I was hoping we could defer it.
I just cannot in all consciousness support the
application because of my concerns about the system,
which I think is broken already.
And I can't see how it's going to get any better.
It's just going to get worse.
And I would disagree with the comment about every site in the
Cotswolds has a problem with flooding.
But one of the things I am very conscious of is sitting on this committee and approving
things subject to Thames Water or Seven Trends coming up with the goods.
And I have absolutely no faith and don't mind that being a public statement in the water
companies.
And it's not because they're not fit for purpose.
It's just that the problem is so huge, so huge that it costs millions and millions of
pounds.
and I think my number one responsibility is to the residents, the current residents of
Willersley, so I won't be supporting this application.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:29:02
Thank you very much. Councillor van
Councillor Michael Vann - 1:29:06
I had intended to support the resolution but others have got there first. I think it's
something that we need to do as a planning committee.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:29:18
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:29:22
Thank you very much for your valued opinion. Thank you. Councillor Conlon.
Thank you, Chair. I'm just double checking. This is in the context of something called a Grampian
condition, which I don't think applies here, but I have one in my ward, which was just totally
ignored. It wasn't connected in the way the Thames Water wanted it. It was connected in a different
way, creating a lot of stink because the new development wasn't fully occupied, so there
There wasn't enough flow to shift the stuff.
And there was nothing anybody could do about it.
Temswater said, oh, you haven't done what we told you to do.
Never mind.
I hope that won't happen here.
And having said that, the real reason I put my hand up
was to double cheque that we've got
a revised recommendation on page three
of the supplementary papers.
But that does include the 20 conditions and four
informatives, which are laid out on pages 107 to 118
of the agenda.
It is a detailed set of conditions and informatives.
and without those I certainly wouldn't support this.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:30:19
If that's the end of the comments.
The recommendation, can I just cheque about the contribution to the Village Hall?
That's been agreed with the Parish Council now, has it?
Officer - 1:30:36
That will be the subject of ongoing negotiations and discussions, so at the moment
we still think that figure is slightly too high so we can discuss that with the
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:30:49
between the parish council and ourselves and developer. All this will go back
through the ward councillors as well we're not going to go without their
involvement so and if there are issues obviously we'll come back.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:30:56
So now we're moving on to the vote. I'm just going to read out the current
recommendation and please will you correct me if I get it wrong. So this is
the recommendation that's set up on page three of your additional pages which
which reads this.
The recommendation is permit subject to no objection
from Gloucestershire County Council,
lead local flood authority,
and completion of a section 106 legal agreement
covering financial contributions to secondary education,
library services, and community transport.
The provision of affordable housing
and self -built custom housing,
financial contributions to Willessey Parish Council
for improvements to the village hall,
recreation ground, and cemetery.
So that's the recommendation on which we are now voting.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:31:45
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:32:13
Okay, so that recommendation is passed.
That application is accepted.
Seven votes in favour, one against and one abstention.
So that application is allowed.

9 25/03122/FUL - Wyck Hill Farm Racing Stables, Stow-on-the-Wold

Councillor David Fowles - 1:32:38
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:32:43
Councillor David Fowles - 1:32:47
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:33:03
Okay.
Now we are moving on to the next application, agenda item 9.
Agenda item 9, which is the proposed relocation of a stable yard including provision of new
access, new buildings and siting of a mobile home and associated works, demolition of existing
stables and buildings and conversion of existing barns to form two dwelling houses, phase development
at Wickhill Farm Racing Stables,
Wickhill Farm, Wickhill Stow on the World.
The case officer is Martin Perks
and I am the ward member.
So, Councillor Perks, would you like to?
I haven't been upgraded yet.
I'm not a promotion.
You're waiting.
Sorry, Mr. Perks, I'm so sorry.
Officer - 1:33:59
Shall I give you an update?
I know you want to speak, but you're keen.
If I give you an update where we are and do the presentation,
if that's all right.
Just say, I had an email from the agent applicant yesterday
just querying whether they could have flexibility in some of the
wording or some of the conditions to enable them to
phase some of the time periods for submitting details.
I don't have a problem in principle with that.
So, hopefully, if the recommendation is to permit,
then obviously if you can have delegated authority to amend
the time frames within some of the conditions like to deal with drainage so we can split
the housing element from the equestrian element and things like that.
So if that's acceptable, I'd like to change the recommendation to cover that.
I'll go through the slides to show where we are because I have no objections from many
parties to the scheme.
Right.
The sites on a hillside about 1 .9 kilometres to the south of Stow -on -the -World next to
the A24 main road, which goes to Burford. I put this on because the contours show the
sloping nature of the site, so the land slopes from the southeast to the northwest, as you
can see there, with the bulk of the development at the moment in the southern corner of the
site, equestrian stables, road and arena, and two barns.
The applicant's part of the scheme wants to demolish existing, a range of existing equestrian
buildings, remove a menage and various other horsewalkers and such like and arrest, erect
new equestrian facilities to the northwest. These are the existing buildings which are
proposed for removal. The riding arena would also go. And this is the area proposed for
the new building. So it's a sloping site adjacent to the existing building, so it would require
cutting into the bank to provide the new equestrian facilities. I'll just go... Also, there's
stone barn, front and rear elevations, which the applicant is looking to convert to a dwelling.
It's previously had permission for conversion to an agricultural worker's dwelling. This
is the Dutch barn on the site as well, which is also proposed for conversion to a dwelling.
Although it's open -fronted, it's quite solid construction inside, so it's got quite a lot
of substance to it and is capable of conversion. The site entrance at the moment, which serves
the equestrian development, is onto the main A road and has got very restricted visibility
So it's not suited for large -scale equestrian development.
So that's one of the reasons why the applicant is looking to create new entrance points,
which would be on to the northwest of the site on this stretcher road here, a relatively
straight -setter road.
Highways are fine with the new entrance.
Visibility is fine.
And this shows the location of the new equestrian buildings.
The landscape fields to the south would be re -landscaped and restored to fields with
trees and the buildings move further away from the existing stone barn and Dutch barn.
New entrance road would extend to the north of the proposed equestrian buildings. So they
have separate entrance for the equestrian development and one for the housing. And this
is a cross section through the site showing the change in land levels. Because the buildings
are set on the hillside cutting through the landscape, they're not going to be on the
of the hill, so they won't be seen against the skyline, they will sit against the hillside.
And in context with existing equestrian development, the applicant's been on site for about 20
years, he's got a well -established business, and this gives him the opportunity to create
new purpose -built development, which we consider will have a significant benefit to the rural
economy. And whilst there is a landscape impact of the scheme, we consider this instance in
the context that it is justified and has reasonable grounds to support the scheme. On the basis
it will support the rural economy. Thank you very much.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:38:00
Thank you. We haven't got anybody down to speak apart from me as the ward member. Should
Should I come and sit in the seat that says,
board member?
Ward Member - 1:38:29
Oh, that's it.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
So now I've changed my title to board member.
So first of all I want to say that I wasn't asked to visit by the applicant or the agent.
When I saw this application come up in our pack, I thought I'd better go and have a look
as it was in my ward.
And I was very pleased to do so.
I've passed the gates on that difficult corner on numerous occasions, the entrance gates.
So this is, as Mr. Perks has told us, an established equestrian business.
is a racehorse trainer who's been in that site for more than 20 years. Those of you
who live, know the area well will know that there's enormous local competition
from the big yards. I visited one myself. They're extremely plush and with
extraordinary facilities for the horses. And so this long -standing business needs
to modernise in order to keep hold of the business.
So the applicants took pre -advice about the location
of the new stable block and moved the siting of the stables
to fit in more comfortably in the landscape.
So the reason he's applying is to maintain the viability
of an established rural business.
It will provide local employment.
I can vouch for the fact there's a young man who came
came to ride out on the horses.
While I was there, I asked him where he lived.
It was Upper Rissington,
so just a couple of miles up the road.
Also, a feed fan from a local,
feed merchants arrived while I was there.
So he is absolutely supporting local businesses
and local people.
The two barns that are going to be converted,
the lovely old stone barn and the Dutch barn,
are redundant farm buildings,
and they will be used to create new houses
which will support financing the investment in the business.
There's also a request for a mobile home
needed for the groom.
The groom is currently housed in a rather pokey little barn.
And this is going to be changed into the office
for the business.
And the mobile home is required for the groom then.
So the only other thing to mention is about the new access.
You saw the picture of the access.
It is right on a corner and it's very narrow.
It's certainly not big enough to take a decent -sized horse box.
I had to sort of pull up and squeeze myself onto the bit
of the drive in front of the gate, so it is quite dangerous.
And I think the sighting of the new access would be
entirely appropriate.
It's on a straighter bit of highway,
and it's something that's been approved by GCC highways.
So I don't have any query about the access and that's what I have to say. Thank you
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:41:35
Okay, so can we move on to questions does anyone have any a question about this application council files I
Councillor David Fowles - 1:41:42
Have a question if I may Chairman and it's not in any way meant to be rude but
But given that you're the ward member, what's the position
as far as, because I was a ward member in the previous
application and I had to make a declaration about I was
approaching this with an open mind, et cetera,
and I'm just a member of this committee.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:42:05
Are you able to stay as chairman during this application or what?
I had to work with our legal representative and she thought
it was okay for me to carry on chairing it.
I'm happy to, if people are not happy,
I'm happy to let Councillor Watson share.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:42:21
If you think that would be more transparent.
Yes, I can confirm that the chair did speak to me
prior to the committee and established
that she would be approaching it open transparent.
I do appreciate what you've said, Councillor,
and yes, perhaps I did, I should have asked you
to repeat that or maybe ask you to repeat that
now that you are approaching the debate
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:42:44
open and transparently.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:42:45
I should stress the reason I'm mentioning it.
We said that it appears in the minutes
that the question has been asked.
And obviously, there are no objections from the parish
council, no other representations,
which was not the case when I had to declare my position.
So I just thought it ought to be in the minutes
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:43:00
that you'd already asked that question, Sharon.
Yes, thank you very much for raising that.
I hope you accept that.
Yeah, thank you very much for raising that.
And perhaps we should have discussed that at the beginning.
As I said when I did the presentation,
I wasn't approached by the the applicant or the agent I just went out of interest
as this application is in my ward so I had no opinion either way when I went to
visit and I am open -minded as at this very moment.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:43:28
Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:43:31
Councillor Cawr have you got a question? Yeah just on that note to clear that I am
the County Councillor where Bridgewater racing is located and although I have
had never had any connexion with Bridgewater Racing.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:43:46
Any other questions?
Councillor Coleman, oh sorry.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:43:53
Okay, thank you, Chair.
I'm first looking at paragraph 1022,
which deals with the minor difficulty
that the application site is considered
to represent an isolated location in the countryside
with regard to constructing a new property.
And then says, as you can see,
it's therefore considered not to represent
a sustainable location.
And the reason I raise this paragraph now
is in the final sentence,
which begins in order to address this issue,
it says the proposed scheme would meet.
But I think that should read
the proposed scheme would have to meet.
Because that's the context in which I read the paragraph.
This is a beneficial to the developer side effect of their development I think
that they're creating a very desirable property in the countryside and we
appear to be happy with that and it's not clear to me whether this in fact is
enabling development which I was taught a long time ago was not something we
agreed with. We didn't go around enabling beautiful houses worth millions of
in the countryside in order to enable other development to take place unless
there were jolly good reasons. But there's a second and perhaps a more
general point here which is when I first attended a planning committee on a long
forgotten council in about 1988 the very distinguished then council chair and
leader advised me with regard to planning horses ain't agriculture and
those days perhaps no more this is my question is it no longer the case that
We value the use of land for growing food in a significant way above the use of land
for recreation, whether it be golf courses, of course it was in the 1980s and 90s, or
horses as it is now all over the Cotswolds and much of southern England.
Thank you.
Officer - 1:45:41
Yes, just to clarify, it was well spotted.
It should, I must meet or would need to meet, is correct.
The next two paragraphs or sections clarify why the, what those exceptions are.
One can be if it's a conversion of a non -designated charity
asset, and the barn is considered one of those,
so that's one exception.
The Dutch barn, we think there are immediate enhancements to
the setting of the barn by the removal of the buildings
around it.
The re -landscaping of that particular area,
its immediate setting is enhanced.
So in both of those instances, it meets the tests in paragraph
84, and it's not therefore been allowed solely because it's
enabling development for the business.
They stand up in their own rights.
So in terms of, yes, equestrian land is different from agricultural land.
It's a different use class, as it were.
But the change of use application that was allowed in 2020, I said about 2004,
five of these land included where the buildings are going now.
So all that land effectively has an equestrian use anyway
from the permission 20 years ago.
So if that helps.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:46:41
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:46:43
Very much.
Councillor Watson.
Councillor Ian Watson - 1:46:48
Thank you, Chair. Martin, looking at the map, I know that road up to Stowe, and it is, I
think, a 60 mile an hour zone. I know it's quite quick up there. There's been no comment
from highways? Has there been any other concerns raised about access to and from?
Officer - 1:47:18
Thank you. Now, highways have no objection. They ask for more information about clarity
about visibility, space and distances. Yeah, the average recorded speeds are about 57 miles
an hour, so they were within the speed limit, but they can provide the requisite visibility
of about 250 metres from the new entrance, so that meets the standard for that level
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:47:39
Councillor Joe Harris - 1:47:47
road. Thank you. Any further questions? Comments? Debate? Councillor Harris. I think
this is another straightforward one. I think it takes all the boxes. It's
supporting a local business. I think the equestrian sector is very important for
our local economy and it's good timing isn't it with Cheltenham coming up. So
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:48:01
yeah I'd like to propose that we permit. Everyone's putting their hand up. Who
Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:48:07
shall I select? Councillor Caul. Absolutely I mean I fully support this
application I think Bridge Water Racing and Fit Feeds as well in Wickbeek and
we've got some great questioning local employers in the area. I think changing
the entrance I know the entrance very well it's in your ward but it's in my
division I know the entrance very well and it's very dangerous entrance I'm
glad they're relocating that to further north down towards the turning to Stowe
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:48:37
So I fully support this this application for our local area
Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:48:42
Thank you very much does anyone have another comment rather than just saying that they support it councillor judge. Thank you
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:48:44
Yeah, this is great, but also the improvement to the site
I mean how can you know how exciting if he's going to improve the site increase his chances of?
You know improving his business and employing people what's not to like about this?
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:49:02
Councillor David Fowles - 1:49:05
Councillor Fowkes. I too would support it and put my hand up to
second Councillor Harris although I would disagree with his comment that this is a second
straightforward application, in my opinion the first one wasn't.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:49:16
I'm just going to read out the proposal then because there's a slight modification. So
proposed relocation of stable yard including provision of new access, new buildings and
the siting of a mobile home and associated works,
demolition of existing stables and conversion of existing
barns to form two new dwelling houses, phase development,
at Wickhill Farm Racing Stables, Wickhill Farm,
Wickhill, still on the road, with delegated authority for
the officer to amend the conditions.
Yeah, I mean, just to clarify, just to clarify,
Officer - 1:49:53
there will need to be a Section 106 agreement to cover monitoring
of BNG and biodiversity net gain,
so that will need to be covered.
So there will be several months for that.
But in the meantime, yes, just delegated authority
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:50:04
to make minor amendments to timeframes within conditions
and things like that.
Does everyone understand what they're voting on?
Great.
OK, let's go to the vote.

9 25/03122/FUL - Wyck Hill Farm Racing Stables, Stow-on-the-Wold

10 24/02513/FUL - Siddington Park, Cirencester

Councillor David Fowles - 1:50:12
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:50:58
Sorry, I put my thing on.
So agenda item 10 is for the development of land
and erection of buildings to expand
an existing integrated retirement community
class to use including landscaping, parking access
and associated work at Sittington Park,
Sire and Cester Road, Gloucestershire.
The case officer is Andrew Moody.
The ward counsellor is Mike Evermy.
And the recommendation is permit subject to the completion
of a section 106 legal agreement for the payment of financial contributions towards library
facilities, travel plan, payment of financial contribution to mitigate the impact of the
development upon the North Meadow and Classinger Farms special area of conservation. Is that
it? It is, Chair. Thank you.
Officer - 1:52:18
Thank you very much. Now, can I ask Mr. Burdi to do the presentation for us?
Thank you, Chair. I will just run through the slides you saw last month just as a refresher
Those who were on the site inspection last week.
So the application site situated off the roundabout on the side of the road.
Preston leads the north in phase one to the south.
Six blocks proposed.
Follow the mouse.
So block one, two, three, four, five and six.
Next is an aerial photograph taken last year.
So you can see the phase one development completed.
And the six dwellings at Preston lee to the north.
This is a landscape plan.
So it shows indication of the amount of trees are rendered at the site as touched on in
the SIB last week.
There's an area tree preservation order upon the trees at the site.
So this is block one, so this is the one closest to the junction, the roundabout, two storeys
in height.
Moving to the west you get block two, also two storeys in height.
Block three, as the land levels reduce, you cut up to three storeys in height.
Block four is a mixture of three and four storeys in height, that's the one in the northwest
corner of the site.
Block 5 to the south of that, again three storeys.
Likewise block 6 at the southwestern corner of the site.
I touched on these last month, these are shadow diagrams provided by the applicant looking
at the winter and summer solstices and the spring equinox.
Officers were broadly happy that it indicated that there shouldn't be any material impact
rising from overshadowing.
The top drawings you're looking at here are 10 o 'clock
in the morning.
The middle ones are 12 o 'clock, 12 noon.
And the bottom drawings are 4 p .m.
in the afternoon.
Some photographs.
So, as members of the scene last week, that's the view looking up
towards the roundabout in the areas where block two and block
one would be.
Note the trees.
These are obviously taken with considerable foliage on the
trees than when you saw it last week,
be it that some of the trees are evergreen. That's looking towards the area where block
four would be and block five towards the left -hand side of the screen. So that's looking towards
the western boundary of the site with South Surly Road beyond. And looking back towards
the existing phase one development. And obviously that one is the closest property to block
six. One couple of things to touch upon obviously in your additional pages we
have the financial viability assessment submitted with the application in
addition to the report by Aspen or Verdi who were independent consultants
commissioned by the council to review the information provided that was
touched upon last month when debate turned to the lack of approval of
affordable housing. Also within the, well say just one more thing we've had one
extra representation objective the proposal since the publication of
additional pages. It doesn't raise any new material considerations it basically
talks about impact of trees, loss of trees from the application committed
last year that was touched on the site boundary which I will come back to in a
moment. Within the appendices also the needs assessment which was referred to
last month has been reproduced in full so that is in there for you and also at
the very back few pages of your agenda pack is the tree details of the tree
application that was touched upon last week at the SIB so 52 trees surveyed
along the northern boundary of the site one of them up near the roundabout to be
Pollard it to a height of three metres.
12 trees to be fouled, 11 of them are cypress trees
and one, I think, maple tree to be replaced with 12
replacement trees to be either Oak, Birch,
Beech or Scotts Pine.
And one other thing before I conclude,
it was touched on last week about how close
the proposed buildings are to the dwellings on Preston Lee.
So I've looked at blocks one to four this morning,
and I'd just let you know what the distances are.
So this needs to be seen in the context of what the
Cotswold design code says.
So that talks about acceptable window distances
between habitable rooms.
So for a two -storey development proposed,
22 metres is stated to be an acceptable distance.
For three storey or above, 28 metres is considered to be
an acceptable distance.
So, block one is two storeys in height, so you'd need to be 22 metres away.
There's a distance of 42 .5 metres to the rear elevation of number two, Preston Lee.
And to the side elevation of number three, Preston Lee, you've got a distance of 52 metres.
Block two, which is also two storeys, so again, you'd expect a distance of 22 metres.
On an angle to the rear of number three,
Preston Lee got a distance of 33 metres.
And to the rear of number four, you get a distance of 46 metres.
Moving to block three, where therefore that's a three -storey
high property, you'd expect a distance of 28 metres
between windows.
You've got distances of 43 metres to the rear of number
47 .5 metres to the rear of number four, 50 metres to the rear of number five, and 42 .5
metres to the rear of number six.
And then in terms of blocks four, which is a mixture of three and four storeys in height,
again, you'd expect 28 metres.
As members attended the site, we went, the owner of number six kindly let us into his
garden to view his property and the neighbouring site, the application site.
And you will notice the secondary window on the side elevation at ground floor level on that property.
So that actually to the nearest window
that we face towards that property on the application site you're looking at distance 29 metres.
So just beyond the 28 metre distance and then you're also looking at the distance of 60 metres to the rear of number 5
Preston Lee.
So as
the completion of the legal agreement and also the payment of the financial
contribution towards the North Meadow Special Area of Conservation. Thank you
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:59:20
Chair. Thank you very much. Now we've got two speakers. An objector,
Ollie Freeling -Wilkinson and the applicant, Mr. Howard
Would you like to come forward?
Yes, why not?
Come and sit in the wooden seat.
So, just to remind you, you've each got three minutes to speak.
My colleague, Councillor Watson, will be timing you and he'll tell you when you've come to the end of your time
We'll allow you to finish your sentence, but not to carry on with several more paragraphs. Okay, so first of all, Mr.
Freeling -Wilkinson, would you like to start?
Objector - 2:00:18
Hi everybody, I'm Ollie, a resident of Preston -Lee and I'm representing numbers 1, 3, 5 and 6 Preston -Lee and Preston -Millbarn.
I'd like to start by saying that we're not against reasonable development of the proposed site
but the current applications for six blocks of flats, including three and four storey blocks,
in very close proximity to our homes in a semi -rural edge of village location.
As a resident, this is clearly an emotive topic, but I'd like to highlight two key areas for
consideration. The first is to directly address the comments made at the last committee meeting
where the applicant's agent claimed that meaningful design revisions were made following
consultation with a conservation officer. The design had been improved to reduce overlooking
at Preston Lee, density and building height concerns had been addressed collaboratively.
However, this contradicts the case officer's report.
10 .60 states that the senior conservation design officer remains of the opinion that
further alterations are required.
And at 10 .61, it states that these concerns have been brought to the attention of the
applicant, however, no further amendments to the design have been forthcoming.
The applicant's unwillingness to amend designs was further reinforced by site visit by the
officer to our home on 12 September last year, whereas Dye -Bold, the applicant, was
refusing to make further changes to the plans. And this is on the back of
increasing the height of Block 4, only metres from our home, from three storeys
to four. So I'm not sure how that fits in with addressing density and height
concerns. There's only ever also ever been one pre -planning resident engagement.
This took place way back in May 2024, where assurances were made that the
concerns of residents would be considered, but no further consultation has occurred.
The second point is to address the trees on the boundary between Preston Lee and the proposed
development.
I mean, this is an important point because they've been consistently cited as providing
a level of mitigation.
In the case officer's report at 1079, it states that shadow diagrams have been provided to
demonstrate that there would be no material impact from the proposed development.
However, as I'm sure for those of you that have attended the site visit on the process
of February, the shadow impact report is inaccurate.
It paints a picture of full tree cover all year round when there are clear gaps in existing tree line
It fails to consider the deciduous nature of the trees and crucially it fails to reflect the impact of the planned tree felling
So as it stands a report cannot be relied upon
With regards to the planned tree felling 12 tall mature trees are due to be replaced by new trees
Which clearly does not provide a comparable level of mitigation
The statements made by the applicant's agent at the last committee meeting contradict the case officer's report and the applicant is refusing to make further changes.
Furthermore, the impact of the tree works coupled with the inaccuracy of the shadow report clearly undermines the mitigating effects of the tree cover which has been relied upon by the case officer.
We therefore would urge that members refuse the current proposals.
However, in future we would welcome the developer actually engaging with the local community to submit a proposal that is not only sympathetic to its surroundings but its close neighbours.
Thank you.
Applicant/Agent - 2:03:30
Dear members, you will be aware now that our model is different from many other forms of retirement housing.
Our residents live independently in purpose -built apartments, receive care and support as required in a vibrant service -led community setting.
Our award -winning village has maintained strong levels of interest since opening with approximately three sales per month and is now 83 %
sold with seven new move -ins due this month. We also have 155 registered prospects for the future proposed phase.
This is what some of our current Siddington Park owners have to say. Our lives have certainly changed.
We have been able to meet lots of people of a similar age, and we all want to carry on
living and having fun, enjoying life as much as we can.
What we enjoy about living here is the independence.
We looked at other retirement villages in the past, but they did not have the facilities
that Rainsford were able to offer.
And finally, I moved to Sydenham Park in 2024 and have not looked back.
I enjoy acro -robics with new friends and have found a passion for dancing.
With the proposed final phase, owners will benefit from even more communal space, a village
tall, bowling green, greenhouse, more raised beds,
and a permanent kitchen garden to supply the restaurant,
which is open to the public,
with seasonal fresh ingredients.
Outdoor space, privacy, and safety
are very important to us.
The works to the boundary trees
are a result of an independent tree surgeon's report
based purely on health and safety concerns.
The survey has been approved by the council's tree officer,
and these works will go ahead,
regardless of any development activity
that's taking place. Currently our village employs 40 people, most of whom
are local, working across food and beverage, care and support, health and
well -being, maintenance, gardening and administration. We also have a hair salon
visiting local therapists, tutors for dancing, bridge, arts and crafts and
numerous guest speakers. We also use services from within the local
community such as removals, estate agents, solicitors and supplies for the
coffee, Woodchester Valley wine and many more.
Our owners make use of our popular electric minibus, making regular trips to Syrancestor
High Street, Waitrose and Tesco's with monthly excursions to places further afield. This
helps reduce additional traffic movements and car ownership on site is currently 65%.
Providing this type of accommodation in a sought after area like Syrancestor is an important
part of boosting housing provision locally by freeing up much needed family housing stock.
The council's own evidence base shows that there is an unmet need for housing with care
accommodation. This is just one reason why the planning officer has recommended that
planning permission should be granted. We also feel that planning concerns have been
addressed throughout this process, per our submitted documentation and the case officer's
report. This is much more than just another housing development. It's a vibrant community
for older people, which helps the local economy, provides much needed employment and housing.
We do firmly believe that the final phase will support these benefits in a sensitive,
balanced and appropriate manner.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Do you want to go back to your seats?
Ward Member - 2:06:58
Thank you, thank you chair and thank you for the last two speakers giving us their views
on the application.
I want to thank members for agreeing to go on a site visit before determining this application
and thank those of you who came along.
I think it was very useful we got to see the site, the location of the blocks on the ground
as they were marked out and the trees and the view from the two properties in
Preston lie the gardens that we went into and I welcome the updated report
with more detail about the trees than we had last time and I notice including
reference to the Preston neighbourhood development plan following
representation that was obviously from the parish council that was made in the
I think those of you who were here last time will remember that I raised three particular
issues for you to consider as a committee.
The first one was the trees.
The second one was affordable housing and the lack of that in this application.
And the third one was the amenity of the neighbours.
So dealing with each of those in turn.
The trees, I'm pleased that there's some clarity about which ones are now going to be replaced
and that's good. I'm looking again at the shadow diagrams and I remember and I'd
like members to consider we were there at about 11 o 'clock in a winter's
morning and there was sunlight in the gardens in terms and that doesn't
necessarily reflect if you look at the winter and the spring equinox figures
there. So I do think you know the cover was tree cover is not complete it is
different at different times of year and I struggle looking at those diagrams to
think that actually the gardens of the residents of Preston Lye are in shadow
basically for most of the year outside the summer. I don't feel that's
representative of what we saw when we were there.
Conning to the affordability, clearly I was disappointed and as members of the
committee were that there was no affordable provision nor even any
allocation for off -site provision is light of that. I would like to see that
reviewed if you decide to grant this permission as the numbers could change,
the figures could change and you know I think it can accept that the occupancy
rates on the existing site are now high and therefore they have proven a demand
the applicant for people to want to live in this locality with those amenities
that the applicant was just describing. The outstanding issue for me aside from
the trees and the shadow I just mentioned is the amenity of the
neighbours in Preston Lai. I think we accept and the principle of development
and you've heard they accept the principle of development. The question I
think for you as members to consider is are these proposed buildings or at least
some of them or at least one of them too big and too near to the properties and I
the case officers outlined the minimums and then said where this sits against
the minimums but ultimately that's a judgement for you to make but we are
talking about you know substantial mass masses of buildings particularly block
four when the proximity to number six Preston lie if the committee is minded
to permit this application I would like them to reinforce and they may want to
have a look at the conditions 25 and 31 around timings of works.
But I think also I'd like them to look at a condition around
the drainage.
I mentioned that on the visit to members of the committee.
I mention it in public now that there have been issues with the
drainage on the existing site, and I didn't see anything in the
conditions about the drainage, and that would be a major
concern in terms of capacity of the drainage on the site to deal
with the new development if it's permitted.
And finally, the condition about the viability
when the properties are built, as I mentioned.
When the properties are built,
I think it should look at the viability,
and if there is an opportunity for the developer
to make a contribution, they should be asked to make one
so that we can provide some affordable accommodation
for older people somewhere else,
because there's very little,
and we know there's a shortage
of affordable accommodation for older people.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:11:32
Thank you very much.
So it was really great to have the opportunity to do a site inspection briefing. Thank you to Mr. Moody and Mr.
Bawlu for taking us.
It was very interesting. So I'm going to ask the people who attended
to give their opinion. Councillor Bridges, you were there were you not?
Councillor Nick Bridges - 2:11:57
Yes, I intended. I like the Cotswold Stone, the place next door.
I'm not sure I was walking around.
But what struck me was that the two storeys are great.
When they go to three storeys, they're starting to get very big.
I'm really worried about when it gets to four storeys.
Number one, because fire engines.
You know, we're not used to having fires go off in four -storey buildings around Sire and Sester.
So it strikes me as being something that works in Oxford or big cities,
but wouldn't work here in Cirencester.
I mean, that's my main concern.
I'm also looking at the maps.
How would a fire engine get around the side?
Because the actual road seems to narrow.
So that's my main objection really is
for the four storey -ness of it.
And it just seems that just with a little bit
of reorganisation you could basically move that away
from Preston -Lee and everyone's happy.
So I don't understand why they've done it like this.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:13:02
because I would do it differently. Thank you that's very helpful.
Councillor Julia Judd - 2:13:04
Councillor Judd. Thank you chair. We were lucky it was another dry day and I
totally listened to what the ward councillor said about the trees but I do
think despite the fact that it was a January day it was already dark in
in that bottom corner where that big block was going to be.
But I think if it was a big block there,
it really would feel very, very, very, very, very dark.
And I noticed that we parked on where the,
I think it's block one is gonna be.
So then I thought, well, where would we park
if that was built?
And there doesn't seem to be enough parking
to go with the amount of apartments which have been built.
And I thought, well, unless you build a multi -storey car park,
there's going to be a few issues there.
And also, there's a lot of talk about a lot of green space.
Well, by the time they put the roads in and things,
I can't see that there would be much green space.
And there was certainly no privacy.
I didn't see any other residents from phase one
wandering around the site.
And I wouldn't want to go outside either because wherever you are, everybody else is looking at you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:14:28
Thank you very much.
Councillor van.
Did you attend the site inspection?
Oh, I'm so sorry. I thought you were there.
I remember you had a car accident. Yes, sorry.
Councillor David Fowles - 2:14:45
Councillor Fowles, you were definitely there.
Thank you Chairman. I don't want to repeat what's already been said.
I hadn't really thought about the emergency vehicle issue which Council Bridges has brought up.
It's a very sensible comment. First of all, my impression of the site is I had absolutely no idea how big that site was.
having driven on that road into Sarens
The advantage we had of going on site then was it was, how should I put it, not being a farmer, but as I understand it, that's about as bare as the tree gets.
So what we were seeing was, you know, a situation where what light was coming through was at a particular time of year, because as we get into spring and summer, suddenly there's a lot more block.
My main concern was and is block floor and the impact that has on number six in particular.
And I really wanted to, when it comes to questions, probe the officer in terms of these metres.
And we talked about angles of light and what people are entitled to, etc., etc.
But I was really concerned about the massing, as the ward member says.
and I'm really uncomfortable with the three and four -storey properties, particularly block floor,
and how it seems on all the plans to be much further forward than the rest of the site.
And I said that at the time. Why is it so far forward and so close to?
Leaving aside the issue of the meterage for a minute, it just seems incredibly close
compared with the other properties in relation to, is it Preston Line?
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:16:55
Councillor David Fowles - 2:16:58
Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much, Councillor Colman. You are also there.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:17:02
Yes, thank you, Chair. I think we started with the existing buildings because we
had to cheque in and I was reminded of how densely packed they they appear to
be. There's nobody reporting today but frankly, honestly, as I was walking
towards the entrance through a sort of three -sided courtyard I was vaguely
reminded of those black and white films of Prisoner of War, Escapes from Colditz and
so on where there were always these banks of three -storey and four -storey cells.
But that was only a very slight feeling.
Just I was reminded how well the first site, stage one, has been positioned so that it
isn't intrusive on the views of those entering or departing from Sire and Sester.
It's well set away and there is tree cover.
But when we came to the proposed site, I was struck by, in fact we can tell when I looked
at the plans and to confirm this, if anything it's even more densely packed than the first
phase.
And when Andrew, our officer, explained to us that some of the distances were quite tight
and one or two that looked tight had been got round by putting a block wall where you
would otherwise expect a window, in other words, perhaps
an adverse form of design, I began
to wonder whether this was a bit difficult for the developers
to wash its face.
And of course, we've now had a very late paper
with lots of pages which almost says that the developer's
cutting their own throat to develop this.
It's so difficult to make a profit.
Almost the independent analyst says,
this doesn't meet our standards for profit.
So that's helped me.
But I think the main bit from going back to the site visit
was that in contrast, the existing houses that
adjoined the development are actually modest in height.
Some of them, and several if not all of them,
the first floor windows are set into the roofed clearly
in an attempt to reduce the impact those dwellings,
those existing dwellings, have on the adjoining countryside.
And I think that's why that development on its own
work so well. But when we were trying to work out what didn't feel right, it was only after
I got home, I thought, actually, it's because in that part of just off the site, the developer
there made an effort to reduce by reducing height to make it more modest. And in contrast,
we're going up to four storey blank walls at 20 something metres away from the nearest
property. So on reflection again, it fails any test of achieving beauty, which is supposed
to be one of the objectives of the MPPF,
so nobody's quite certain what it is.
But I don't think anybody's going to call this
planned development beautiful.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:19:55
Thank you very much, Owen.
I'd very much I was also at the visit.
It was interesting to see the existing development
and it did seem a lot of houses close together.
There wasn't a huge amount of green infrastructure.
I guess you don't want to put a playground in
for older people, although yes, why not?
Yeah, they didn't seem to be much external green space
for them to occupy and it doesn't look like there's much
on green infrastructure on this plan either.
And I also was concerned about the size of block four
and also its position on the site.
It does seem to be very close to the Preston,
lie Preston D, yeah.
Okay, so now question time.
Who's got a question?
Councillor Fowles and Councillor Jenner.
Councillor David Fowles - 2:20:48
Just two questions.
The first is, and Councillor Coleman kind of referred to it,
we got this financial viability assessment, obviously,
on late papers, and how much weight should we place on that?
Because as Councillor Coleman has very eloquently said,
It's as if the applicant is saying,
these are the numbers, so in order for this to work,
you've got to build what's there.
Now, I don't know whether that carries weight or not.
It's quite unusual to get this, particularly on open papers,
not pink papers, but I'd like some clarity on that, if I may.
The second question is, the objector talked at length
about the, well really the lack of dialogue that had taken place between
residents on the existing properties and whether we've got a comment from the
ward member on that. And the third question relates to these wonderful
metres and I was very impressed with Andrew's knowledge of that. He said he
It's not about the meterage, it's about the mass
and whether it qualifies in terms of meterage.
I'm just worried about this whole issue with the size and the mass
and whether we've got any guidelines in terms of figures for that.
It's one thing to say you're 22 metres when it's a family house
and another family house being built next door,
but you've got a family property and then you've got a block four storeys high.
Do we get any guidance on that in terms of mass as well as meterage?
So three questions.
Thank you, Chair.
Officer - 2:22:41
On the viability side, well, as you appreciate, your additional
pages pack includes the independent appraisal that we
commissioned from Aspen or Verity.
They don't necessarily agree with the overall findings of
that submitted on behalf of the applicants, but the thing they
did concur upon was that they didn't consider that the scheme
can be profitable, it wouldn't necessarily return the amount of profit
that would then allow for an affordable housing contribution to be provided. But
yeah, but that's the council, that's independent consultants. If they
disagreed, they would say so. They're not just necessarily going to go along and
say, oh yeah, this is just a tick box exercise, we agree. They did a lot of
research into this, they took them several months to come back to us, I was
constantly in dialogue with them, chasing them to when they're going to get back
to me. So you know you do need to give some weight to what in particular what
Aspen or Verde is. Yes you have to give weight to it yes because ultimately
that's the reason why there's no affordable housing off -site contribution.
There was met I think somebody mentioned about on -site contribution well having
spoken to the housing strategic housing team their comment was that that's the
very last thing that a registered social provider would want to do is actually
manage a piece of properties on the site when you consider their service
charges etc it would just not be economic and they wouldn't they wouldn't
look at it so the only thing you could look at here would be potentially be an
off -site financial contribution the next question came to dialogue well obviously
I mean statement of community involvement that the councils have
encourages developers to maintain a dialogue with local residents etc etc
but are you going to refuse an application because of developer a
didn't talk to residents be I suggest you're probably not to be honest so
whilst it's always helpful ultimately you've got to determine what's in front
of you not whether or not there's been a constant dialogue between an applicant
and a group of local residents. In terms of the meterage, yeah block 4 is one the
officers have looked at very carefully but I think as I stated last month it's
an on -balance recommendation. We're also very mindful that we have a 1 .8 year
housing land supply and this would be 55 units towards that shortfall but having
seen the site if members are concerned about the size and massing of block 4
then you need to refuse the application.
But just to point out that obviously the nearest part of
block four to number six is three storeys in height.
The four metre is 29 metres away, hence the distance I gave
earlier, and in terms of a comment made a few moments ago,
it's not a, it wouldn't be a blank four -storey high wall
closest to number six, so that should be three storeys
in height.
And the reason why it's blank is because as stated last month,
we asked the scheme to be amended because they were going
have balconies there that we're going to look into the garden number six and
probably number five and number four at the distance that we consider to be far
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:25:38
Officer - 2:25:39
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:25:40
Councillor Julia Judd - 2:25:44
too close. Thank you chair. Thank you councillor Judd. Oh thank you chair.
Is there any when it comes to the light and the angles and and your your helpful
measurements is any weight given towards whether it's north south east or west?
Officer - 2:25:59
Well, yes, I mean the shadow diagram is exactly that.
It's to show where the sun is at 10 a .m., 12 noon, and 4 p .m. on the respective days,
be they the summer and winter solstices, which is not the easiest word to say, or the spring
equinox.
So yes, where there's north, south, east, or west is clearly going to have an impact
upon the angle the sun is going to come from and what shadow may be caused.
Clearly the issue here that the applicants and their agents have to address is the fact
that they're due south of those neighbouring properties.
But then you've also got to remember there's 52 trees
along the boundary at the moment, and whilst 12 are going
to be taken down, there will be replacements.
And within a few years, they're not suddenly going to plant
20 -metre high trees.
Of course they're not.
But in a few years' time, those replacement trees are going
to grow, and they're going to be probably far sturdier.
And in terms of the trees as well, we did, when we were
on the SIB, we did look at them.
And it was clearly that a number of them were dead.
So I thought nothing else.
They need to be removed for safety.
I'm sure the neighbours don't really want branches falling into the garden in bad
weather or even the trees falling over in a breeze because they've got dead
trees on the boundary so something planted in replacement is surely going
to be a betterment in the longer term and also going to provide a greater
degree of screening in the longer term because dead trees don't have foliage.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:27:15
Thank you chair. Any other questions? Okay comments, debate?
Officer - 2:27:23
Councillor Joe Harris - 2:27:31
Councillor Harris. Yeah I mean I actually think this is a very
finely balanced application. I think officers themselves have acknowledged
significant design and heritage concerns particularly around the height the bulk
and the massing of blocks four five and six and you know I think if we're honest
The scheme only balances out because the council's housing land supply has fallen to 1 .8 years.
It's well below the five year requirement that we're supposed to have.
So under normal circumstances I don't think this will come close to meeting our local plan or the design code.
The Conservation Office concludes that Block 4 in particular causes a greater level of less than substantial harm,
if you can try and unpack that, to the setting of Preston Mill which is a grade two listed building
because of the proposals excessive scale and massing in this rural landscape.
I think for me that's not a marginal concern that is quite central to our heritage policy that we have.
I think the development conflicts with core Cotswold Design Code principles
that building should be proportioned to human scale.
They avoid an excessive or uncharacteristic bulk and respond to local context on height.
I think the proposal fails on all three fronts in that respect.
I think one of my concerns as well, and I would say this, wouldn't I, but the proposal to live a zero affordable housing,
this being a 55 unit scheme, we'd normally expect up to 40 % affordable housing provision.
Whatever the viability position, the outcome is that the local community receives no meaningful local benefit in exchange for serious visual and heritage harm.
I think crucially we've heard that the applicant was asked to make further design amendments to reduce identified harm and has chosen not to do so.
we're being approved today as suboptimal design simply because the land
supply position is weak not because the scheme is good enough which you know if
I was in the applicants shoes I'd probably do the same thing quite honestly
so I think we shouldn't allow the housing land supply situation to be used
as a carte blanche to waive local plan principles design character or heritage
I think as a committee you know we have to take these tough decisions don't we
in the context that we're operating in with the housing situation but I still
think we need to be absolutely clear that we should still refuse where harm
outweighs the benefits so for me a better lower height lower mass
development is clearly achievable on this site and refusing the scheme
doesn't block development it simply demands a scheme that respects its
surroundings its neighbours and of course our Cotswold design code.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:30:10
Councillor Joe Harris - 2:30:16
Thank you. Councillor Caul. Thank you. I also want to thank the members who attended the
Councillor Daryl Corps - 2:30:21
site visit. I was unable to attend that but therefore it's very important that those who
didn't attend listen to what the members have said about their visit. And I think Councillor
Bridges was very eloquent about the impact on block four on Preston lee cottages. I mean
even just looking at the plans at the last council meeting, the sheer scale and
size of these blocks and the impact on Preston -Lee cottages would cause
them harm and loss of amenity for them. So I really think that I
couldn't find myself in favour of this development as it currently stands. I'm
such a large amount of retirement properties
just because of our experience in the North Cotswold
where we've got developments that are what,
five, six years old and they're sitting
over half empty still.
So I would question that.
But it's about the scale and the harm
that it will be causing local residents
as they stand at the moment.
And that's listening to what the planning committee members
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:31:33
have said who made that site visit.
Councillor Daryl Corps - 2:31:35
and they've been very clear on what they've said.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:31:38
Thank you very much, Councillor Caul.
Councillor Judd, sorry, your turn.
Councillor Julia Judd - 2:31:41
Thank you, Chair.
I appreciate what the planning officer says
about those trees, but they are trees, not a wall.
And the four storeys would be higher than the trees,
but I think I'd rather live next to tall trees
that let a little bit of light through.
And you just only have to look at the site plan.
There is absolutely, there's just no green spaces,
the trees and a tiny, tiny little bit of grass
on the roundabout side.
I mean, who wants to sit outside by a roundabout?
And then at the bottom, there's a tiny bit,
which is overlooked by four blocks.
So I go back to the point, there is no privacy.
If you want to go outside, there is no privacy.
And four storeys, this is our ancestor.
You know, we're not in an inner city or, I mean,
why are we even talking about four storeys?
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:32:42
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Fowles, your go.
Councillor David Fowles - 2:32:49
Thanks, Gemma.
When I look at page 233, where it's not actually numbered,
but it's the one opposite 232.
It almost looks like two developments,
the existing development, and we all went into the main block
to cheque in, and then we did have a little bit
of a wander around.
And I actually thought that was, it was a really nice development.
So the stuff that's in grey, the top right -hand corner
on page 233, and then suddenly we've got, you know,
these six blocks, and it's been said very,
very eloquently by my colleagues.
I don't actually have a problem with blocks one and two or even six.
It's three, four and five.
And when we were in that garden and we looked up, I suddenly thought, well, I wouldn't have
used the colditz analogy.
I think that's perhaps a little unkind.
But I did think, well, it was actually quite dark.
It was 11 o 'clock.
The trees were very sparse, but it was really dark.
And I thought, well, what's this going to be like if the residents of that particular
existing development had, well, basically it's three and four, which I think are huge
and not against the principle of this type of scheme and the expansion and so on and
so forth.
But I just think it's too much on that side.
It's too high and too much mass for me.
Notwithstanding our very experienced officer giving us all the maths about meterage and stuff like that,
that's just my overarching feeling when I was there.
And I'd like to thank the committee, the ward member and indeed the case officer and the residents
for allowing us to have a good wander around, because I wouldn't necessarily have appreciated it
just by looking at these plans.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:34:42
As Councillor Cawre has said, you have to be there to feel it and I felt it.
Thank you very much, Councillor Colman.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:34:49
Thank you, Chair. It's not only in Stowe that we already have an oversupply of independent
living or semi -independent living dwellings. In my own ward, a 32 apartment development
was completed about seven or eight years ago and I checked my data which showed that just
Just about two and a half years ago, of the 32 flats, 21 were occupied.
However when I looked at the more recent data I have, I find that of those 32 flats, only
18 are occupied.
It's a situation that's not improving, not least because whilst there are many pensioners
with wise investments or fortunate investments who are doing quite well, there are plenty
for whom that's not the case.
I have mentioned the issue of beauty and in any decision we make, I do hope we might for
once make a specific reference to the repeated emphasis in all the editions of the MPPF for
some years now that we should seek to achieve beauty in building.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder to some degree, but if I turn to what I think in very
small digits as page 245. Nobody's going to say any of that any of those views of
the three and a half four -storey buildings is beautiful particularly not
the bits where they blocked up the windows to get around the 20 or 30 metre
restriction. Furthermore and can I say I hope this is becomes a more regular
practise it doesn't always happen the Conservation and Design Office's comments
have been included in full. We quite rightly in most cases produce one
unified set of officers views so we don't get officers arguing against each
other but there need to be exceptions as often as possible in my view to that
view so we can get to the what our real specialists really think and if we look
on that in page 213 1060 .1, 1060 .2, 1060 .3 and 1060 .4 I would
copy and onwards onto the following page I think all that would make a fine set
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:37:11
of paragraphs within any refusal decision we might make today. Thank you
Councillor Julia Judd - 2:37:17
very much Councillor. Yes Councillor Judd. Yes thank you we haven't talked about
drainage but I don't think we need to I propose that we refuse the application.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:37:28
Okay, we need to set our grounds for refusal now. Thanks.
Sorry.
Councillor Julia Judd - 2:37:36
Councillor Judd and then Councillor Harris, you're going to second that.
Yeah. Well, yeah, we can all give reasons but the basically density design.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:37:46
Councillor Harris, do you want to add to that? You were quite eloquent before.
Councillor Joe Harris - 2:37:52
So, again, we could write paragraphs, couldn't we?
So, I think, you know, harm to heritage assets,
local character, and failure to comply with the
Cotswold design code.
If you want, I can unpack that a bit more, but if
officers are content with that, then there's probably
also one, isn't there, around harm to the landscape
character and failure to respect the settlement edge.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:38:16
Councillor Joe Harris - 2:38:23
Yes, yes, the conservation officer also reports harm to the setting of Preston Mill, I think.
Did you mention that?
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:38:26
Councillor Joe Harris - 2:38:28
Is that adequate?
Just to clarify, just because there's been a few different points being thrown around,
so the focus of the refusal reasons would be on heritage harm to the impact on setting
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:38:40
of the listed buildings and general design in terms of scale, massing, and just the conformity
with the design code.
I would be happy with those as the two refusal reasons.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:38:49
Just to exercise, tilted balances in play, the presumption in favour, paragraph DI specifically
acknowledges that harm to a heritage asset is sufficient in its own right to disengage
the tilted balance, notwithstanding that design, paragraph 135, 139 of the MPPF also refer
to good design and other various bits again weighing in the balance.
But I'm satisfied, obviously, if members are concerned about the heritage impact
and having a heritage refusal reason, that in itself disengages the total balance.
So I'm satisfied from paragraph 11.
I don't know if Andrew, who has been scribbling notes, has, you don't know, we may obviously,
if members are happy with that in sort of broad terms, but obviously we'll fine -tune
a refusal reason before we issue anything.
But I don't know if you'd maybe just give us some.
Officer - 2:39:34
Yeah, just in terms of relationship to neighbouring properties,
is a question for members.
This is turning it on you.
Is it particularly, would it be just questions,
questions say blocks three and four you wish to refer to in
terms of the impacts on the neighbouring properties
of Preston and Lee or would it just necessarily be block four?
If I may.
Because if we're talking about mass.
Are we meant to take the application on its own merits
as is presented rather than?
No, no, what I'm saying is in terms of how we would rid
refusal reason, do you want, would you wish to refuse a
reason to specifically refer to blocks three and four?
If you're talking about proximity to the existing
residential properties, you know, concern about the impact
upon the amenities of those occupiers, is it, you know,
would it be a question of refusal more generically,
talking about the development proximity, or would you say,
in particular, with say blocks three and four, or just block
four in isolation to be referred to as being the greatest source
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:40:41
concerned because clearly if the applicants become appellants and lodge
Officer - 2:40:42
an appeal we'll need to hone in our case in terms of what you want also in terms
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:40:50
of defending that with any appeal with a planning spectra.
Could you just raise your hand if you want to say something?
Councillor Judge, fire away.
Councillor Julia Judd - 2:40:56
Only because it's the density. Four storeys is block four.
three storeys is block three, block four and block three. I think both of those
blocks would come into my concerns. I don't know about other members of the
committee but obviously I would like to be guided on the strongest most robust
reasons that to protect you, us.
Officer - 2:41:26
If I may, Chair.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:41:28
We're going to have the officer.
Officer - 2:41:30
It's just that listening to your conversation,
the biggest issue for you is the relationship
and the massing of proximity and the impact upon Mr.
Frieden Wilkinson and his family at number six.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:41:40
So is that correct?
Yeah, no, I'm talking about in terms of residential
Please don't interrupt.
We're going to listen to the officer.
I thought you were too slow.
No, no, I wasn't talking about you.
If you want to speak, you need to raise your hand
and you'll be called to speak,
Officer - 2:41:51
but the officer is going to present at the moment.
Officer - 2:41:54
Yeah, no, it's just the question is,
are you looking at refusal reason
talks about residential amenity of the occupants because at the moment we seem to be going down
the road of design but if you're concerned about residential amenity you need to articulate that
as a separate reason for refusal. For me definitely as I said there's no green space,
Councillor Julia Judd - 2:42:13
there's very little parking, they're too high and they're the closest to the neighbours I think
is a bit of a red herring because I think the other ones are more important for the site
just for the site. I obviously do care about the neighbours but I don't think
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:42:31
that that's a strong enough reason right now. I'm just going to jump in there so
heritage harm, tick, refusal reason, fine. Design and we're more the design refusal
reason is on the effectively failure to conform with the design code. It's scale,
massing, it's lack of open space, it's layout, it's not impacting the immunity
of the neighbour, it is purely that that's when we're saying design that is our focus
That's fine.
Across that one.
Again, there are, you're happy with those.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:42:57
Those are two more refusal reasons.
Councillor David Fowles - 2:42:59
Councillor Fowle.
Well, had I proposed or seconded it, I would have said that all the comments about the
design, the mass, et cetera, when it comes specifically to residential amenity, as I
said, it's block three and four, and the impact that they have specifically on the neighbouring
development.
but the size massing the design code etc as articulated by Councillor Harris and
Councillor Judd but specifically that block three and four in that top left
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:43:30
Councillor David Fowles - 2:43:31
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:43:32
Councillor David Fowles - 2:43:35
hand corner is the one that impact on residential immunity that's for me
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:43:36
anyway but I'm not the proposal or seconder. Councillor Coleman last comment
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:43:41
and then officers will sum up. Chair it's almost a question to you how much more
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:43:51
evidence will make any difference that we are having properties built for which
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:43:53
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:43:56
there's no demand which are uglifying our district we are having empty old
people's flats almost deliberately built. Can we can we and how can we ever use
that as a planning reason for refusal have we got to go on letting and because
it's almost certainly something to do with money laundering under this there's
There's no other reason why people build empty flats.
My understanding is that if we are oversupplied
with this type of accommodation,
it counts in the tilted balance.
It gives us less weight when we say
we've got a shortage of housing supply,
but I will ask, I'll defer to the officers.
Councillor Joe Harris - 2:44:28
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:44:29
Councillor Joe Harris - 2:44:30
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:44:32
I think that, no, I think Councillor Coleman's remarks.
Councillor Joe Harris - 2:44:35
Well, yeah, I mean, I think that's quite serious
and unacceptable.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:44:37
Can we return to this particular application?
What you've discussed, Councillor Coleman,
is something that we can take at another time.
Thank you.
Could Councillor Coleman, without his microphone,
turn it off?
No, he wants to clarify.
Yeah, I need to clarify.
I wish to withdraw the comment.
I withdraw the comment wholeheartedly.
Yes, thank you very much.
I have no evidence, I'm just a bit tired.
Yeah, no, I think that should be withdrawn,
so that's good, thank you very much.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:45:15
Right.
Refusal reason one, impact on the setting
of the listed building, conflict with local plan policies,
EN 10, EN 11, Paragraphs 215 and Paragraph 212 of the MPPF.
The second refusal reason focused on the design,
conflict with policies EN 1 and EN 2
and the consular design code in Paragraphs 135
and 139 of the MPPF.
I'm happy, if you're happy, that that satisfies
the total balance and the presumption of favour.
So as long as obviously, Councillor Judge,
you're proposing, so as long as you're happy
that that's articulate, well that sets out
the points you wish to articulate as your refusal reasons
and then Councillor Harris is certainly happy
that that's, he's happy to second that as the two reasons.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:45:52
Councillor Julia Judd - 2:45:55
I am happy with that, but if you can squeeze
in the word density somewhere, I'd be grateful.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:45:59
Thank you very much.
So that's, refusal is proposed by Councillor Judge
and seconded by Councillor Harris, is that correct?
We will move to the vote. Thank you.
Councillor David Fowles - 2:46:12
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:46:36
Councillor David Fowles - 2:46:38
We are voting to refuse the application.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:46:54
Now, for a little light relief,
we now have a presentation, thank you, Jardim,
about the council's response to the draught MPPF.
Can you be quiet please?
We're moving on.
Councillor Coleman, Councillor Fowles, yes.
Just a way of guidance.
Could I ask Geraldine or Harry,
just mindful of the time selfishly
because I've got to go to another meeting.
How long is this presentation like you to take?
Councillor David Fowles - 2:47:33
it depends how many questions you ask it depends how many questions you ask
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:47:42
So, as of today, about fencing, again, based on a mini invading foundation building may
3 1 1 is that the planning and licencing committee results to grant delegated
authority to the director of communities in place to make the final submission of
comments on the consultation having regard to further comments made by the
committee and after the meeting and in consultation with the cabinet member for
housing and planning who is here with us and to secondly grant delegated authority
to the director of communities in place in consultation with the cabinet member
for Housing and Planning to submit comments on recent consultation on
design and planning and place making planning practise. What's this on there?
Is that it? Guidance consultation. Yes. Did you all get that? Do you understand
what we're doing here? We're voting on those two recommendations
on page 311. Are you good to go?
Officer - 2:49:02
Thank you very much.
This will be very short.
The Government published a draught National Planning Policy Framework just before Christmas
this year and they have asked all authorities and interested parties to comment on those
and our deadline is the 10th of March.
As per the constitution, where there is time, we bring consultations of this nature to Planning
Committee, hence the report.
The MPPF changes are quite significant.
I don't know whether members have had the opportunity to look at the draught yet, but
there are significant changes.
The structure of the MPPF is changing quite considerably, and it is now going to be split
into, as the report suggests, it is going to be split into plan -making policies and
development management policies.
That in many ways makes the document quite easy to read, so there are some benefits in
that.
To accompany the draught consultation, there is a 224 -questionnaire which we are being invited to fill out,
which looks in detail at all elements of the issues that the new MPPF or draught MPPF raises.
So I have also attached that to your papers. That is a work in progress.
We are still waiting consultee responses on that document and are happy for any responses
that you have, members. If you wish to provide me with any comments, and we don't wish to
do that this afternoon, then I'm happy to receive any comments that you have by Friday
next week, which is the 20th of February. That will then give us time to collate what
we have for me to consult Juliet as portfolio holder and then make sure that we respond
to government in good time. Very, very briefly, the report covers a few
headlines. The first is that with regard to our local plan preparation, the arrangements
haven't changed. We are still – it's still acceptable for us to submit our plan by the
end of December this year, and that the format of that plan
will be looked at in relation to the old MPPF,
not this new one.
There are some provisos with that, however,
in that should the government adopt the PPF as it is now,
it now includes development management policies,
which it never did before.
Those development management policies would take precedence over the policies in a newly
adopted local plan because we were looking to adopt it under the old MPPF.
So that's just something that we need to flag up.
We are clearly aware of that from a local plan perspective and we will be looking to
ensure that our policies, draught policies in the local plan do their best to adhere to
the new policies in the draught MPPF.
The draught MPPF also talks about special development strategies, which again is something which
the authorities in Gloucestershire are already looking at in anticipation.
That will be an umbrella strategy for the new unitary or unitaries, which will then

11 Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

create a framework under which the authorities will then look at further detailed plans.
So I've just mentioned a few other things. There is specific policies in relation to
development in settlements and development outside settlements. I think that those two
policies and their questions 37 and 38. They may well be of interest to members, so I would
be grateful for any of your views on that. The glossary to the MPPF includes a description
of what they believe settlement means, but the policy development outside settlement
does talk about allowing for development where there is an unmet need. And as has been mentioned
Earlier this afternoon the council currently does not have a five -year housing land supply.
So I think that will be of particular interest in our district.
And again, the report mentions a new tilted balance.
Again we've heard about the tilted balance earlier on today.
And again the new MPPF seems to suggest that there would be a presumption in favour of
development if it meets an unmet need and other considerations don't outweigh that.
So the consultation response expires on the 10th of March. I'm happy to take any questions
that you may wish. I know that Juliet may wish to say a few words as well. But other
than that, I'm happy to take any comments that you have. But equally, I'm happy for
you to share your comments on the questions, as I say, of which there are many, should
you wish to email those to me directly before the end of next week. Thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:54:54
Julia, do you want to say anything?
Officer - 2:55:01
Councillor Juliet Layton - 2:55:08
I'm only going to move to say actually I don't think there's much to add to this.
It's quite, it's easily accessible, the draught MPPF, if you just look it up, it will come
up easily on the webpage.
and if you have comments, please get them in to us in good time so they can be assimilated
into the other work that is going on already on the questions.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:55:38
Councillor Julia Judd - 2:55:42
Thank you very much, Councillor Judd. Just very quickly, on page 315 of the draught
MPPF, you were talking about that development, it was the one about the agricultural land.
Is there a question on your response that you have, what have you said so far on that?
I don't know how to match up the numbers of the consultation questions with the, do you
Am I making no sense?
It isn't straightforward, you are making absolute sense.
I think the question, if you're talking about development outside settlements, which does include that,
then I think the question you need to look at is question 38.
Thank you.
So development in settlements is question 37, development outside is question 38.
But no, I apologise, the way that the document with all the questions in is set up
does mean that you do need to look at those questions alongside a copy of the draught
and try to trace your way through.
Unfortunately, there isn't an easier way of doing that.
It would have been easier always to have it
all on one document so that the questions
are underneath the actual proposals.
Yes.
Thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:57:00
I agree, I was trying to match up the questions
in the draught NPPF and it was quite difficult bouncing about.
Councillor David Fowles - 2:57:11
Yeah, Councillor Fowles.
Obviously we can come back outside this meeting but I agree with Geraldine's comments under
subsection 7, this definition of what constitutes within a settlement bearing in mind that a
lot of our villages, you know, you've got the core village with a few houses and then
you've got a farm and outbuildings, what constitutes within and I think in a rural context we need
to get some clarity on that because it works in an urban
situation but not in a rural situation.
And several times the famous words,
unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed
by adverse impacts, I personally would think it would be helpful
if we had more examples of adverse impacts and what
constitutes substantially outweighs because we're often
sitting here looking at Harry and the case officer saying the issue of weight, okay,
I'm not making a personal statement here, but just a bit more clarity on that. But the
within the settlement thing really worries me. I can think of lots of settlements where
I'd find it very hard to define what within meant.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:58:32
Thank you very much. It just suddenly occurred to me that anyone who might still be watching
Officer - 2:58:40
at home, I don't think you introduced yourself Geraldine. My apologies. Geraldine Le Cointe,
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:58:46
I'm Assistant Director of Planning Services. And also Juliette who spoke earlier, would
you like to, in case anyone's watching at home, wonder who you are. I'm Juliette Layton,
Councillor Juliet Layton - 2:58:55
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:58:59
I'm the portfolio holder for planning and various other things. Oh, as Deputy Leader,
Sorry. Apologies to anyone who's watching at home who wondered who these people were.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:59:10
So now a Councillor Coleman is next.
Chair, am I right in thinking because I think we haven't actually got the draught MPPF.
We've only got a hundred and something questions.
No, you think it's online.
Oh, we haven't got a paper version.
We haven't got a paper version but there was a link in the papers to it.
Oh yeah, I ran out of ink yesterday.
Can I just, I forgot to start the first few pages.
Paragraph, on page 314 we have the timing paragraph
and halfway down we've got the phrase,
this date is improvable.
Is that a different word or is there such a word
as improvable?
It's interesting, Juliet just mentioned that.
That's actually in the formal document
but it should be immovable.
Oh great, that's right.
Sorry, can I just come in as well on that
is that we have a tilted balance
rather than a titled one.
So there are two.
And I've been reading it for ages,
and I've only just seen the titled balance.
Titled balance, most appropriate for the Cotswold, of course.
We have a lot of titles to balance here.
So yeah, I'm on my, yes I am on.
So the third one I thought was just in paragraph,
VII on page 315, Development in Settlements,
fifth line, fourth line.
Examples of adverse impacts include
where a scheme would undermine land which is designated.
Is that right?
It says it here, would undermine land is designated.
So that's which is designated.
That's it, I'm not gonna do any more.
Juliet's beaten me to the first two already.
Councillor Bridges.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:00:42
Councillor Nick Bridges - 3:00:45
Hello, is there a hard copy of it?
I can just come in and look.
I don't wanna print it all off, so it's not there,
but I did find this really really hard to get through and if you had a hard copy I can come in
I'll spend a couple hours in here. Pardon? You can print it off. What on our machines here? I'm not going to do it at home.
So have you got a hard copy here? We're over a hundred and something pages for this.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:01:15
It's about 120 odd pages. I don't want to take it home.
Councillor Nick Bridges - 3:01:20
No, no, no, we haven't got it printed off I don't think, have we?
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:01:23
We've been 400 pages for today.
I hate to be watching at home.
I mean it's just something to just very briefly.
Let's deal with this very quickly. Thank you. Can you switch your...
Officer - 3:01:32
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:01:37
Chair, I'm sure that we can make a paper copy available for those that want to come to the office.
Thank you. Councillor van.
Councillor Michael Vann - 3:01:42
Thank you. I'd like to focus on the council response.
Starts well, one, gets better and better. Please continue the vigorous response.
Just have a look at the pure specimen, 68. Please remember what sort of a government we've got.
If implemented as proposed, this is the proposed reply, this policy would result in an overall
decline of affordable housing delivery.
I need to go back to the excellent stuff.
It really is.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:02:23
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Does anyone else have a comment or a question that they would like to raise about this?
We have to vote on the grantees.
Do we need to have, we vote on this?
Yeah, on the recommendations.
Yeah, we need to vote on the recommendations.
I've read them out once already.
I'm just going to give you two minutes, well not even that, 30 seconds to have a look at
them on page 311.
Really we're granting delegated authority to our officers.
Okay.
So can we move to the vote on that?
Excellent.
Oh, that was me who was the last one to come.
Up, up, up.
So that recommendation is approved.
Good.
We're nearly there, you'll be delighted to know.
So, going back to the agenda.

12 Sites Inspection Briefing

So we have a Planning and Licencing,
and we have a Licencing Committee tomorrow,

13 Licensing Sub-Committee

here at 11 o 'clock, I think.
And the people required for that, myself,
Councillor Fowles, are you going to be here?
And,
lovely Councillor Brasington who's not who may not be available are you able to
sub? I can serve for Councillor Ray if he doesn't come in. Okay so there's a site

12 Sites Inspection Briefing

inspection briefing is there a site inspection briefing planned? I'm not
currently aware but we'll have to run it. Okay so at the moment there is no current site
inspection briefing but the Councillors required myself a Councillor Watson
and council Brassington, council court and councillor van.
So hold yourself ready for the fourth of March.
Yeah, fourth of March for us,

13 Licensing Sub-Committee

a SIB potentially another licencing subcommittee.
Do we have anything for that at the moment?
No, on the 26th of February,
that would be councillor Watson, councillor Judd
and council van if that's required.
The next meeting is the 11th of March.
At that time you are going to talk to us about a review of an appeal.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 3:05:00
I think we intend to bring where the committee makes decisions and there are appeal outcomes.
We want to start bringing them to committees to discuss the end of meetings.
I know there was one last week which related to Grove peace in Duntersbourne.
Leah off the top of my head.
But I say it came out last week,
so I've had a chance to prepare a summary for you all.
So I'll intend to bring it to next month's committee
and we'll probably add it to the end of the agenda
just to discuss the most.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:05:37
Do you want to ask a question
which you'd like to be on the record?
I just wanted to ask in relation to
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:05:56
I mean normally I ask the board member to come up after the speakers have returned to
their seats. It's just the Councillor Evermy had already come forward and it seemed a little
chairlished to tell him he had to go back again.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:06:13
Okay I'm going to close the meeting now because this isn't of interest to the
public, anyone who's watching.

There are currently no votes to display