Planning and Licensing Committee - Wednesday 8 April 2026, 2:00pm

Planning and Licensing Committee
Wednesday, 8th April 2026 at 2:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Nick Bridges
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Michael Vann
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Joe Harris
Councillor Nikki Ind
Councillor Dilys Neill
Legal Services
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Officer
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill

1 Apologies

Share this agenda point

Julia Gibson, Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill

2 Substitute Members

Share this agenda point

3 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

Councillor Joe Harris
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Legal Services
Councillor David Fowles
Legal Services
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Nick Bridges
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Nick Bridges
Councillor Dilys Neill
Legal Services
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Legal Services
Councillor Dilys Neill

4 Minutes

Share this agenda point

Minutes , 11/03/2026 Planning and Licensing Committee

Councillor Joe Harris
Councillor Dilys Neill
04. To approve the minutes of a meeting held 11 March 2026
Status: In progress
Councillor Dilys Neill
04. To approve the minutes of a meeting held 11 March 2026
Status: Ended

5 Chair's Announcements

Share this agenda point

Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Dilys Neill

6 Public questions

Share this agenda point

7 Member questions

Share this agenda point

Schedule of Applications

Share this agenda point

Planning & Licensing Committee - 8 April 2026 - Index of Applications

8 25/03700/FUL - The Twelve Bells, 12 Lewis Lane, Cirencester.

Share this agenda point

Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Objector
Councillor Dilys Neill
Objector
Applicant/Agent
Councillor Dilys Neill
Ward Member
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Legal Services
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Officer
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Nick Bridges
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Nick Bridges
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Officer
Officer
Councillor David Fowles
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Daryl Corps
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Daryl Corps
Officer
Councillor Daryl Corps
Officer
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Nikki Ind
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Nikki Ind
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Nikki Ind
Officer
Councillor Nikki Ind
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Nikki Ind
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Nick Bridges
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Nick Bridges
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Nick Bridges
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Nick Bridges
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Nikki Ind
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
08. 25/03700/FUL The Twelve Bells, Cirencester - REFUSE
Status: In progress
08. 25/03700/FUL The Twelve Bells, Cirencester - REFUSE
Status: Ended
Councillor Dilys Neill

8 25/03700/FUL - The Twelve Bells, 12 Lewis Lane, Cirencester.

Share this agenda point

Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill

9 26/00072/PLP - Land at Cerney Wick, Cirencester.

Share this agenda point

Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
Applicant/Agent
Councillor Dilys Neill
Public Speaker
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Dilys Neill
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Joe Harris
Officer
Councillor Joe Harris
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Ian Watson
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Joe Harris
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Joe Harris
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Nikki Ind
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Nick Bridges
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Dilys Neill
09. 2600072/PLP Land at Cerney Wick - PERMIT
Status: In progress
09. 2600072/PLP Land at Cerney Wick - PERMIT
Status: Ended

10 25/00006 - Tree Preservation Order - 55 Thomas Street, Cirencester

Share this agenda point

Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
Ward Member
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Nikki Ind
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Joe Harris
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Dilys Neill
10. 25/00006 (TPO) 55 Thomas Street, Cirencester - CONFIRM
Status: In progress
10. 25/00006 (TPO) 55 Thomas Street, Cirencester - CONFIRM
Status: Ended

11 Sites Inspection Briefing

Share this agenda point

12 Licensing Sub-Committee

Share this agenda point

11 Sites Inspection Briefing

Share this agenda point

Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

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

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:00:01

Good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of Cotswold District Council

Planning Committee. I'd like to welcome all the members of the public who have

attended to listen to this committee. It's very good that you're

taking an interest and very pleased to see you. I'd also like to welcome any

members who are watching the webcast at home. I know we have some regular viewers

and we really do appreciate that you take an interest in the workings of this

committee. Can I remind you, anyone who's here, to switch off your phones or to

have them on silent. That includes all members and officers as well as members

of the public. We do vote by an electronic voting system and so people

watching at home should be able to see the the voting preferences of each

member come up on the screen and you will to be able to watch it because it

displayed on the screens here. If by any chance that method fails we shall resort to the old -fashioned

method of raising our hands. So I must advise members of the public who are here that you

mustn't talk to members of the committee or to interrupt the proceedings. Sometimes it

seems a bit antisocial, you may well know your ward member or one of the members of

the committee, but it's very important that you don't engage with them during these proceedings,

otherwise it looks as if you may be trying to change their mind or persuade them to vote

in a particular way. This is a politically independent meeting. We represent the different

parties and the independent member of the makeup of the council. But there is no whip.

we all vote as we see fit according to our own opinions.

Right, so public speakers, we have a few public speakers.

You will each be, you'll be called forward

after the officer's presentation

and given the opportunity to speak.

And you'll each have three minutes to speak.

And my colleague, Councillor Watson will be timing you

and we will cut you off at three minutes.

So we will allow you to finish a sentence,

but please make sure that you sort of front load

what you're going to say

so that the most important things come first

because you will just exactly have three minutes.

Then the ward member has five minutes to speak.

I hope that's all clear.

So introduction.

So I'm Councillor Dela Sneel.

I represent Stolt and the Wolds

in the North of the district.

And I am currently chair of planning.

and I'll now ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:02:51

Councillor Ian Watson representing Teppertown Ward,

Vice Chair on the Planning Committee.

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:03:03

I'm Councillor Nick Bridges, I represent Watermore Ward,

but I also want to declare that I'm also a town councillor

for St Michael's, where the pub in question is located.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:03:18

Good afternoon, I am Councillor David Fowles to represent the Colm Valley Ward.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:03:25

Good afternoon, I am Patrick Coleman. I am the Councillor for the village of Stratton

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:03:39

in the town of Sire and Sister. Michael Van Fairford North.

Ray Brathinton, Sire and Cessna.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:03:43

Dallcore, Moreton Marsh West in the North Costles.

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:03:48

Councillor Joe Harris - 0:03:52

Joe Harris, St Michael's in Sire and Cessna.

Nicky Inn, Tepbury Easton -Rawall.

Councillor Nikki Ind - 0:03:57

Thank you very much.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:01

Now can I ask the officers to introduce themselves?

Good afternoon.

I'm Mari Barnes.

Legal Services - 0:04:07

I'm legal advisor to this committee.

Harrison Bailey, Head of Planning Services.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:04:13

Amy Hill, Senior Planning Officer.

Officer - 0:04:20

Andrew Moody, Senior Planning Officer.

Officer - 0:04:24

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:30

Thank you very much. Are there any apologies?

1 Apologies

Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:04:34

We have apologies from Councillor Julia Judd.

Are there any substitutions?

2 Substitute Members

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:37

Thank you very much.

3 Declarations of Interest

Does anyone have a declaration of interest they would like to make?

First of all, amongst the members, Councillor Harris.

Councillor Joe Harris - 0:04:49

It is not a declaration of interest but legal advice on the application relating to the

12 bells.

I have met with the objectors and had a number of conversations with them prior to me being

on this committee. After seeking legal advice from the monitoring officer, it's

been agreed that I will leave the room for the debate and therefore won't be

able to vote on that application, but I will make my comments in the ward member

section. So you know it's a belt and braces approach, I probably could go into

it with an open mind but if we're being honest the perception probably is that I

don't have an open mind. So after legal advice I withdraw. Thank you very much

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:05:30

for that. Councillor Fowles. Thank you Chairman and thank you for making the

Councillor David Fowles - 0:05:35

comment about members of the public. Obviously one of the members of the

public said hello David, hence me coming up to you. I didn't want him to think I

was being rude by not acknowledging him. More importantly on the 12 Bells

application, in the recent past two other pubs have come to this committee for

change of views, one of which was the Red Lion just outside

Poulton, which I campaigned for and we successfully maintained

that as a pub.

And then secondly, the Waggon and Horses,

when I was on this committee, which on the first pass,

I think one of my colleagues, that remains as a pub and then I

think they either went to appeal or came back again and it wasn't

successful.

So I'm acknowledged as being supportive of trying to keep

pubs open but on this first application I am here with an open mind. Okay thank

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:06:29

Legal Services - 0:06:33

you very much. Yes chair can I just clarify that you haven't campaigned or

spoken up in respect of this particular... I have not been involved in any way shape or form

Councillor David Fowles - 0:06:38

with the 12 bells unlike obviously Councillor Harris so I am approaching

so don't mind but I do have a history of trying to support pubs and main them

remaining open where possible. Thank you. Thank you kindly. Great that's lovely.

Legal Services - 0:06:58

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:07:00

Thank you for clarifying that. Any officers want to declare an inter... Oh sorry

Councillor Bridges and Councillor Coleman. Goodness me.

Shall we start with Councillor Bridges?

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:07:12

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:07:16

You're so kind. Yeah. Thank you. I have two non -pecuniary interests to declare with

regard to this item. First, as a member of the Sciences to Town Council's planning committee,

I was present when this application was discussed at its meeting on 2nd December 2025, where

it was resolved to delegate authority to the lead officer in consultation with the chair

of the committee to draught a response following further research on the NPPF and local plan

relating to the preservation of local assets.

My recollection is that vote to delegate was NEMCON.

Secondly, I am acquainted with the public speaker, Mr James Brown.

I think I've met on average about twice a year over the last ten years.

We share a common interest in the success of the brewery known as the Corinium Brewery

in the Old Kennels, which opens as a bar twice a week.

I don't get there more than twice a month, but quite often I meet James.

and we have discussed some of the background to this case but he's clear

and I'm clear that I make no determination on this matter.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:08:45

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:08:49

Great so I'm also on the town council but not on the planning committee I

think I'm approaching this with an open mind I do know some of the people who

objected but we haven't spoken about it. Also I work in a bar occasionally so

perhaps that makes me moot I'm not sure.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:09:14

Legal Services - 0:09:17

Thank you chair yes in response to councillor Coleman's comments can I just

cheque you said that you're approaching the matter with an open mind and that

you'll listen fully to the debate and prior to making any votes yes indeed

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:09:31

Legal Services - 0:09:35

satisfied with Councillor Coleman in terms of Councillor bridges and you

don't you haven't worked at this particular establishment happy thank you

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:09:47

I'm concerned with thank you very much thank you that's clarified interests

4 Minutes

So now we move on to minutes as everyone had a chance to look at the minutes and anyone got any comments

councillor Harris

Councillor Joe Harris - 0:09:59

Well only to offer my apologies. I

was meant to offer my apologies at the last meeting but didn't the only application was pertaining to

Councillor Spivey I think of which I would have had to let left the room because

You know, she's a close friend

So can I apologise that there weren't formal apologies submitted and just get that on the record?

Hopefully the damage was limited because I wouldn't have been asked to take part in the debate in any event and that was the only item

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:10:28

Thank you very much. I'm going to guess that that would go in the current minutes rather than in

Fulturing the minutes of the last committee that be correct. Okay

Anybody else have any comments on the minutes?

In that case, can I have a proposer?

Councillor Fowl is seconded by Councillor Coleman.

Shall we go to a vote on the minutes?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:11:13

Sorry, great, those minutes are passed. Thank you very much. Okay, so we now move on to

chairs announcements. First of all, I'd like to welcome Councillor Niki Ind, who is our

latest recruit to the planning committee. It's very nice to have you here and we look

forward to your contributions. I know you've sat on the committee in the past, haven't

you? So yeah, you're familiar with the way we work. I would just like to remind you that

If you're called to be on a site inspection briefing,

if it's a panel visit and you can't make it,

please could you arrange for a substitute

because it's a big effort for our officers

to go out from Trinity Road and visit the site

and the reason that we've called

the site inspection briefing is to make it easier

for us as ward members to assess the application.

So if you can't make it to site inspection briefing, please will you and you're on the

panel visit rather than a full member visit, please could you make sure that you've arranged

a sub to go on that visit?

I think that's all I needed to say about that.

5 Chair's Announcements

Yes. So, moving on, there are various matters that Harrison is dealing with at the moment,

including fees and schemes of delegations. I'm just going to pass over to him now because he's

going to offer to do some briefings for us over the next couple of months.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:12:47

Yeah, sorry. I thought I'd just very briefly let you all know a few bits and pieces coming out.

The central government are consulting on planning committee reform. It's out of consultation at the

follow the previous consultation this committee were consulted on and discussed. Unfortunately

because of the timings involved we will not have time to bring that proposed response

to committee. So I was going to invite you if you did have any comments you wanted to

provide on that if you could get them to me by Monday, Tuesday next week, so 13th, 14th

of April. I appreciate that's not much time but we've only got four weeks to provide the

response. And yeah if you have any comments. It's only three questions, it's largely in

line with the previous consultation so I don't anticipate it being overly contentious but

yeah if you do have any comments you're welcome to provide them to me in writing

by email. There's a second consultation currently live on fee regulations and

that one we do have time and that will be coming before you in the May Planning

Committee so I'll be drafting a response that one is more substantial as 21 -22

questions and but that one will be coming before you in the May Committee

for discussion and resolution for your for what for a collective council

response effectively. And then finally it was just a reminder members you should

already have had the invite there's an all members annual training session on

3rd June and it's the training session required in order to sit on planning

committee. Members are required to do the training session plus

supplementary every year. So it's both, obviously current members are welcome to

attend if you've already attended the training in the last year you don't have

to but if you do have members of your parties that are interested in being

substitute members they also have to have completed this training so it is

open to all members so you're welcome to pass that message on and

it's going to be hybrid so as many people as attending as possible is more

than welcome. So yeah, so that's the 3rd of June though for that training.

But yeah, sorry that was just a few updates I thought I'd let you all know.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:14:31

That's your query covered is it? Councillor Coleman, you're under the date.

Thank you very much. Thanks. Anything else you need to tell us? Thanks. So now we're

6 Public questions

going to move on to public questions. Are there any public questions? And are there

7 Member questions

any members questions? Okay, so we'll then move on to the schedule of applications.

Schedule of Applications

applications. The first application is for the change of the use of a public house to

be generous to a residential dwelling C3 with ancillary B &B outbuildings at the 12 bells,

12 Lewis Lane, Syrinsester. The applicant is Mr Harold James, is that how you say it?

The case officer is Amy Hill and the ward member is Councillor Harris.

So the recommendation is to permit.

8 25/03700/FUL - The Twelve Bells, 12 Lewis Lane, Cirencester.

So I'm going to ask Amy if she would do an update for us.

Thank you, Chair.

Officer - 0:15:30

There's no updates from when the committee of the paper was published, but I'll just go through my presentation.

So property is currently 12 bales,

I'm hoping that fix three, yes.

Which is currently a public house

with managers accommodation above and also an ancillary.

Yes, Councillor Coleman.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:15:50

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:15:51

Do apologise, but could we encourage our officers

not only like one of them is very soft,

not here today, but also to speak a little bit more slowly,

we have got the time and I hate to have to ask

a question later to see if I've understood. But I don't wish in any way to impugn the

professionalism of our officers.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:16:12

Can you actually hear Amy or does she need to shout a little louder?

A little bit more volume.

All right. I'm sure she can cope with that. Thank you.

Officer - 0:16:27

I will try. I have been told, possibly on multiple occasions, that I talk far too quickly.

But I was just like slow.

So the 12 bells it's a public house with managers accommodation above and an ancillary B &B to the rear of it.

We're in the star ancestor South conservation area and the property is grade 2 listed.

And there's other listed buildings in the vicinity.

It is just outside of the town centre.

So as in within the local plan, there's designated town centres and primary shopping areas.

Because they're quite close, but outside I have shown those on this plan.

So the reddish colour is the town centre boundary and then the green is a primary shopping area.

There's multiple green lines. Part of those are like primary shopping frontages, but less relevant in this case.

In front of you are

of plus or minus a little bit of distance but essentially areas within 400 and 800

metres of the existing pub and that's because 400 metres is usually viewed as

a desirable walking distance to other facilities and 800 metres an

acceptable distance. And then next I do not promise that I've caught every pub

or similar type of establishment but just to give an idea that there are a

number of other drinking establishments in the and that's the 400 metre area

The one that is the rear arms

over to the east is the Talbot

inn.

That is currently closed.

As far as I can see, it is

scheduled to reopen.

It is currently not open.

Then just to remind people,

people haven't managed to look

at the property.

It is just down the road from us

effectively.

Very interesting.

it is. There is also a plan. This is a little bit blurry so I think if you want

to look at a floor plan that look at the one in the back of as the appendix

although they aren't specifying they're actually doing any internal works or

operations so it's more as just information. Thank you.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:18:43

Thank you very much. Now can I invite public speakers to come forward. We have

objector, Mr James Brown and the applicant, Mr Joe Seymour. Mr Brown, you will speak first

You will get three minutes.

Mr Brown will speak first then Mr Seymour and then Councillor Harris will finish.

Mr Brown and Mr Seymour, just to remind you that you have got three minutes each.

Off you go, Mr Brown.

Objector - 0:19:37

The 12 bells is clearly a valued community asset, shown by more than 150 objections,

including those from the town council, civic society and even the council's own conservation

officer.

Even immediate neighbours have not supported the proposal, which is unusual when a pub

closure is involved.

Pre -planning advice stated that consideration will be given to the way the benefits are

rising from the scheme, such as the delivery of housing against the adverse impacts. There

are, however, no public benefits, only harm. There is already one dwelling in the building,

so there is no net housing gain. Against this, the pub, host of Fort Arse teams, Crib team,

served as a meeting place for the bell ringers, WI, History Society and many other local people

and visitors. Its closure also means the loss of employment, typically four to six positions,

and only a pub provides pub jobs. These points alone warrant refusal.

The main argument for approval is alleged non -viability, yet the applicant does not

dispute the £150 ,000 adjusted net profit as advertised, a strong figure for any pub.

He claims this was achieved only by an unsustainable 80 hour week, but in hospitality such hours

are common and include an element of choice. When my wife and I ran the pub, we worked

at similar hours but were already taking steps to reduce before selling.

The claim of non -viability also rests on the fact that it did not sell as a pub after 12

months of marketing, yet the applicant himself bought it as a pub, saying he would reopen

it. When local camera representatives, including myself, offered practical and promotional

help the offer was declined, a contradiction of the claim that no alternative offers were

made. Initially the pub was marketed at an unrealistically high price. Only after several

reductions did it reach an asking price of 575 ,000, at which point the applicant bought

it, acknowledging it was at risk. That risk being the potential to boost its capital value

through change of use. Buying it as a pub at this point effectively removed the chances

to find its true market value. Pre -planning advice requested an independent valuation

and evidence of other interests of parties. Neither has been provided. It also stated

that the lack of buyer interest does not prove non -viability but must be shown through 12

months of actual trading figures. These are absent. It should also be noted that this

application is a retrospective one only submitted after action by the Enforcement Officer after

12 months of occupation. In conclusion, the applicant has not demonstrated lack of local

interest, no evidence of non -viability and no public benefits, only harms to the community,

local employment and the town's vitality and appeal. Approval would endanger every

public house in the area should it so only decide to apply for a change of

use if this valued profitable pub is lost with no benefit.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:22:37

One sentence left. Moving on to Mr. Seymour now you have three minutes. Thank

Objector - 0:22:43

Applicant/Agent - 0:22:45

Good afternoon. Officers have judged that the proposed change of use is

acceptable, most notably accepting that the lack of viability has been

demonstrated by a robust marketing exercise with no one interested in

taking on the running of the pub. The council's policy on this is clear as

explained in the officer's report. If a pub is for sale and there's no interest

or offers made within a 12 -month period and a change of use is allowed. The pub

was on sale for nearly 18 months but even significant reductions in the asking price

failed to encourage a new owner who was prepared to continue the pub's use. The previous landlords

tried to pass the torch but no publicans, landlords or breweries were prepared to accept

it. They voted with their feet as no one was prepared to take the financial risk. Some

members of the public are understandably sad about the prospect of the pub changing to

different use. But it isn't decisions made by committees like this that close pubs.

Pubs only close when no one's prepared to take them on and run them as a profitable

business. In this day and age, this has become so difficult that people simply aren't prepared

to take the financial risk in the numbers that are needed for all vacant pubs to reopen.

It's important to remember that the planning system is here to manage change and to determine

new uses for land and buildings. It's not to stifle new uses when the evidence has demonstrated

that the current use is no longer viable.

Policy INF2 and others like it exist because it's

in no one's interest to keep a vacant pub

on the market indefinitely.

The War Benborough has warned

about approving this application, setting a precedent,

but the committee knows that this is not true

as planning applications must be determined

on their own individual merits

and the evidence supporting this proposed change of use is sad.

Therefore, with no policy reasons to refuse a change

use or request that you support the officers recommendation thank you thank

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:24:42

you very much you're welcome to return your seats if you'd like to thank you

very much both of you and Councillor Harris you will have five minutes when

you're ready

Ward Member - 0:25:00

thank you chair well we'll talk about twelve bells don't we I'm getting alarm

bells looking at this application that's for sure. The application is before us

because it requires a careful planning judgement. Whether the loss of a valued

community asset in a sensitive historic setting is justified by any public

benefit. In my view it is not and I can see no public benefit whatsoever to tip

balance in favour of permission. Let's start with that planning balance shall we.

Officers suggest that harm should be weighed against benefits such

housing delivery but there are no meaningful public benefits here. The building already

contains a residential unit so there is no net housing gain, there is no contribution to the

district's housing supply, no affordable housing and no wider regeneration benefit. What we are

left with is a proposal that delivers no clear public benefit but does result in permanent and

irreversible harm. That harm in my opinion is significant. The 12 Bells is a long -standing and

well -used community facility.

That's evidenced not just by over 150 objections,

but by the range of uses and groups associated,

as we heard from the previous speaker.

It supported local employment, social activity,

and informal community life in this part of our ancestor.

Colleagues, Policy INF2 sets a clear test.

Either the facility is no longer needed,

or it is no longer viable.

In this case, neither has been demonstrated.

The central issue in this case is liability.

The officer report relies heavily on the applicant's

claim that the pub is not viable.

That claim is not supported by the evidence.

The applicant's own sales particulars describe a

business generated adjusted net profits of around

£150 ,000 a year.

That is not a marginal business, particularly in

the pub trade.

It is a profitable one with identified scope to grow

further through increased trading hours, food and sales.

The suggestion that this level of performance is somehow unsustainable is not evidence.

Long working hours are not unusual in hospitality. Trust me, I know.

And in this case, previous operators were already taking steps to reduce those hours.

More importantly, the required marketing and viability tests have not been properly satisfied.

We are told that the pub was marketed for 12 months with no interest.

But the reality is that the applicant himself purchased it

during that period, having indicated an intention to

continue operating it as a pub, and that was communicated by

local residents, to local residents.

That directly undermines the claim that there was no demand

for use.

There was also no independent valuation submitted, despite

pre -application advice requesting one, nor is there

clear evidence that the marketing exercise genuinely

tested the market for continued use as a pub, rather than any

alternative use.

Crucially, there is no evidence of sustained trading decline.

The local plan and best practise expect viability to be demonstrated through actual trading

performance over time.

That evidence has not been provided either.

This is not a case of where the evidence is finally balanced.

It is a case of where key evidence required by policy is simply not there.

It doesn't exist.

There is also no evidence that alternative options have been properly explored.

whether that is continued pub use under different management or mixed community use.

Policy expects the loss of such a facility to be a last resort and I stress that this has not been demonstrated.

Finally, members should consider the wider implications.

This is one of the last remaining free houses in the town.

Its loss would not just affect this site, but it would set a precedent for the erosion of community infrastructure more broadly.

Once lost, such facilities are almost never reinstated.

Think of all the pubs in Syrinsester that have closed over the last 20 years.

Have any of them reopened?

This is therefore a decision of lasting consequence.

Members, this is not a case where harm is outweighed by benefit.

It is a case of where harm is clear and the benefits are absent.

Policy conflict is clear.

The evidence is insufficient and the loss would be permanent.

Even the Conservation Officer, who as members of this committee will know I don't always see eye to eye on, is objecting to this application.

For those reasons, I ask the committee to refuse this application, save this community's pub.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:29:40

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:29:54

So now I'll open the floor to members questions.

Councillor Fowls and then Councillor Branson.

My muggle, your couple.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:30:08

Sorry, I just want some clarification, if I may, from the legal officer.

Councillor Harris obviously spoke very impassioned about this application, all right?

But he stated at the beginning of this meeting that he had an interest, had spoken at length with people,

and that he would leave the room having made his speech, okay?

I'm a bit confused because clearly he's come out in favour of refusing this application

and can't take part in the debate and can't vote.

Yet he's left us in no doubt whatsoever by the round of the doors where his position

is.

Is that acceptable legally?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:30:46

I mean I think that's what normally often happens when...

Councillor David Fowles - 0:30:52

No, I just want some clarification because I'm aware of people leaving at the beginning

of an application but I can't recall and maybe my memory is failing not my

hearing but just one clarification on it. I'm not denying he spoke very well and

all that I'm just saying that he made it very clear his position that's what I

Legal Services - 0:31:11

just wanted some clarification. Thank you chair thank you councillor and as far as

I'm aware the councillor is entitled to speak as the ward member for the

application, but as he has determined himself not approaching it in an open mind, as he

said in the outset, he is not taking part in the question and debate of the matter.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:31:32

So because he is a ward member he can speak and express his views however he wishes to,

but because he is a member of the committee he felt he should withdraw. That's the clarification.

Okay, that's all I wanted to find out. Thank you.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:31:47

I think we normally, we're ward members, we quite often have our own position either supporting

or objecting to the application.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:31:56

Could I ask my question now, which is, or first question. It's in relation to the marketing

referred to under 1021. I'm a bit confused. Was it marketed as a pub? Because it's clear

that as the price went down and the agents changed, the interest that was expressed,

especially when it went to Moorallen was with a view to converting the pub to a

residential dwelling or dwellings in Plurall. So was it always marketed as a

pub? Just want clarification okay and the agents were not saying well if you're

lucky you might be able to get a change of use just want some clarification on

that. I'd have to have particulars in front of me to actually say whether or

Officer - 0:32:38

not they had anything saying potential for planning. My understanding is that for

duration it was advertised as a pub I think by the time it got to Moorallen

there was probably a more of a and other potentials although they said that they

stressed more of the residential part of that but Moorallen only took it on in

June of 2024 and it'd been marketed from the first of sorry from January 2023 so

whilst it was with Christie and Florezzi it was very much a pub all being

advertised as an ongoing concern. More now I think potentially have changed the

emphasis but it was still clear that it was an ongoing concern.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:33:20

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:33:24

Thank you very much. Do you have another question? Thanks. I do but I'll come later.

Okay, Councillor Bressington. Thank you, Chair. I've got two questions if you don't mind.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:33:29

I noticed that Historic England have got no objections but the Conservation

officer has, could you tell me what criteria Historic England look at which is different

from what the conservation officer looks at? Thank you.

Officer - 0:33:47

Generally Historic England are focused on Grade 1 and Grade 2 star -listed buildings

and then other random things like removal of staircases. So they tend to, I would say

that 80 % of applications we consult Historic England on, they're not interested. I think

Probably to do with for this application. They were probably consulted because of potential is the proximity to the schedule each monument

Actually, so that would theoretically be in their angle the proposal doesn't include any physical alterations in terms of birth work

So it's not likely to be something that be interested in so

They are consulted as a strategy console T

But I wouldn't have really expected them to respond on this type of application and it is primarily the conservation officer

Who'd look at the impact on the listed building itself and conservation area?

for Grade 2.

Can I just jump in there just to clarify, only as I happen to have the historic England response.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:34:37

They do specify in one of their sentences that they're only providing comments on the potential impact on the archaeology of the Roman towns,

the Egyptian monuments, Amy has failed to be just said that, but they do clarify in there that they're looking at the archeological side rather than the impact on the listed building.

Thank you. Second question.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:34:54

It says there's no independent valuations being provided.

Do we ask for one at all or do we just wait to see if one's put in the

application? The short answer is it depends. There are applications for

Officer - 0:35:10

change of use of pubs where we do awesome. In the pre -app I did request it. It's

then a balance of whether or not it is considered necessary. In this case

because of where it lies in relation to the town centre being just outside it

but also within proximity to other pubs and similar facilities I considered not

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:35:31

be necessary in this case. Thank you. Councillor Bridges. Mine is a sort of similar

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:35:37

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:35:39

question. It was originally put on the market for 700 ,000. I read somewhere

the chap from Canberra was saying it should be nearer 400 ,000 and then it

seemed to have sold for approximately half so in between so five and a half.

The numbers are so wildly differing that I'm just curious as to why,

do we actually know what the fair price should have been

and how obvious would it have been to the people who were initially interested that it was overpriced?

Officer - 0:36:28

In terms of initial valuations, that information was requested.

Unfortunately, the person who worked at Christie & Co who did the first valuation no longer

worked there so wasn't able to provide how that value had come to be.

I think they said there were about three expressions of interest and one viewing during that time

and then as you said the value of it, the asking price was decreased.

Essentially, it seemed reasonable but also that it doesn't appear there were any offers

that were expressed and said actually we'd be interested if we could have this act 100 ,000

less or similar.

So essentially it was on that.

That essentially was the summary of why additional information wasn't requested.

Is that any other questions?

Councillor Bridges?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:37:17

Yes.

Not very satisfactory, honestly.

Yeah.

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:37:34

And so the question that springs to mind is, why is there this huge difference in price between something which is residential and something which is business?

and surely we should be taking that into consideration because if it was put on

the market as if it was a residential price and so therefore quite high and

actually low if their businesses they should be lower then we should go back

to them and say well why didn't you put it on the market at a fairer price.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:38:06

Do you have a comment on that? Essentially the pricing seemed reasonable it seemed

Officer - 0:38:10

considerably lower than it would be as a residential house so it whilst they

didn't have sort of valuation details to sort of a significant degree the values

didn't seem unreasonable. Thank you. Councillor Fels.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:38:24

Councillor David Fowles - 0:38:30

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:38:31

Thank you I've got two questions one is... Bridges. Councillor Bridges.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:38:44

I have two questions.

Reference was made by the ward member to the views expressed by the conservation officer.

On page 1036, page 27, the conservation officer refers to a quote Historic England made, that

the best known and best loved building types, the public house or pub, they are increasingly

under threat from demolition and change of use and as such are important features within

our local communities.

The building is of historic and architectural significance and is prominent in the street

scene and makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation

area, all of which I would endorse.

Given what the ward member said, I wonder if Amy could just clarify what she sees as

the benefit to this closing, not reopening as a pub and contributing to the housing stock,

because the ward member feels very strongly that the benefit is not, there is no benefit,

It isn't outweighed.

And so I'd like some clarification on that.

And also, I'd like clarification on policy INF2,

referred to in 10 .22.

So one is your view of the conservation officer's concerns,

Amy, as the planning officer, because ultimately it's

your decision, or rather the department's decision.

And secondly, this issue of INF2 in terms of viability.

Because when you say there are a number of pubs, food,

and drink establishments. This is not just a food or drink establishment, this is a grade

two listed free house and to my knowledge there are not a lot of grade two listed free

houses in Sire's List. Yes, you can go and get a coffee or a burger somewhere but that's

not the same as going to an established grade two listed pub. So your view of Historic England

and INF2, please.

Officer - 0:40:44

Mean if it just goes down to the historically comments and

Quote then that's all stands almost by itself in terms of the public benefits, which seemed like what you're originally asking for

essentially

The pub if it's left as is and essentially the pub just remains all the building remains not actively as a pub

As there was no purchase or any sort of long someone essentially it's a risk of just being left and most buildings

especially historic ones, perform better when they are occupied and heated and

actually run actively so that is the advantage of having the whole thing

convert into a dwelling is its continued active use.

Officer - 0:41:27

I'm going to get to 10 .22 first before I start. What was the particular query in

relation to Ireland.

This is issued...

Councillor David Fowles - 0:41:42

But I gather it was something that the

department made 150 ,000 net profit, bearing in mind

people work long hours, et cetera.

Okay, sorry.

Okay, yeah.

But is...

Your view is that you support the

applicants view that it is no longer viable.

Officer - 0:42:11

I would summarise it more with INF2, obviously it relates to

community facilities as an overarching.

You'll note that there's bits in it which are both relating to

viability but also replacement services.

Now, obviously they're not looking at replacing the

facility, but it is material that there are alternatives.

So it's more of a combination between the no one has, as far

where no one's actually reached out to buy it as a pub and operationally operate it as such,

and that there are other pubs in a, or pubs and similar facilities in the surrounding area.

So it's a combination of those two factors. When it comes down to the specific use of a

pub in terms of whether it's a free house or otherwise, the policies don't really get into

that kind of level of specific, it's having somewhere for people to meet and to act as that

community facility not the to me it's not the exact nature of what style of

pub it is so whether it's a free house or otherwise I don't consider the policy

to really touch on that particular I would have said it would be a very hard

argument to go with.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:43:22

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:43:25

Councillor Caul. Thank you chair and it's just a question I know this would have

been touched on regarding how the pub has been marketed in the past.

Because if it's been marketed at an inflated price, it will probably deter genuine buyers

for a pub.

And it can also, especially when it sits on the market for such a long time, it can look

as if there's no interest in the business.

And it might be used to justify the change of use as well.

So I just wanted to ask, was it marketed at a realistic,

so was it marketed as a pub or was it marketed as a potential,

or marketed as human residential development?

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:44:14

I'll respond to that in a moment, but I thought I'd just jump in in terms of,

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:44:17

obviously, when an application is submitted, to some extent,

we take it at face value.

Obviously, we scrutinise that information,

and will scrutinise the evidence put in front of us.

From officers' assessment, they're

satisfied that it was a realistic or reasonable price.

There was an extended marketing period.

The price was decreased.

That evidence was put in front of us.

Officers reviewing that information

in the context of the policy are satisfied

that it was a reasonable or realistic price.

Obviously, members are welcome to reach a different view of,

based on your own experience or your own judgement.

And you don't agree with that.

But from an officer's point of view,

the marketing over, I believe, is 18 months.

I think there's some evidence that it was, I think Amy mentioned earlier,

or clarify in a moment, but it was initially advertised as a pub,

there was a later marketing exercise that maybe was a little bit more ambiguous

over that use, albeit if it had been on the market for 12 months,

is that unreasonable?

It's a case, and it's a judgement call in terms of that reasonableness

and whether or not it was realistic.

Officers have taken the view that it was, obviously members may reach a different view.

I'll see if Amy wants to add anything to that.

I think I looked online for things, which might be where I was struggling to find it right now.

But that is the judgement that offices have made.

Sure, because obviously when you market a business,

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:45:25

it's about the profitability and the turnover.

Because it may have been, it may not have failed as a part

of the 150 ,000 pound profit.

Do you know how many years ago that was prior to 2023

when it was first marketed with ChristianCo?

Because that's, I mean, I've got a small business

and that's a good profit on that premises.

Officer - 0:45:54

Unfortunately, I think I must have Googled for the marketing details, so found them myself

rather than necessary than being on the file because I can't put my hands on them immediately,

which I would have hoped I would have if they were.

My recollection of those brochures included essentially it just said that that had been

the market of profitability rather than saying for this period of time it had been like that.

Unfortunately, because I cannot find that, I cannot guarantee that that's more of an

as memory.

I'm just checking one other thing to see if I can.

The Christian Cove one actually is in the planning statement.

That was the initial one where it was advertised at the 750 and that very much advertises it

as a pub.

I'm mentioning sort of distances from places and in terms of scope for the growth of the food scale and the like.

And focusing on the pub side, let me just get to the bit.

Okay, yes, I'll read this out as a quote.

So trading information, net sales of 324946 for the year ending 30th November 2022,

split as follows food 81 ,000 something wet 219 accommodation 24 ,000 adjusted

net profits profit in excess of a hundred thousand approximate trade is

split 70 % wet 25 % food and 5 % accommodation that was the initial

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:47:26

Officer - 0:47:29

advertisement that was sent out for the first ones okay thank you sounds like a

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:47:31

viable business to me personally.

Maybe it was just being.

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:47:36

Councillor Int.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:47:39

Thank you, Chair.

Councillor Nikki Ind - 0:47:41

I don't know whether it's possible for us to have

the map backup of the pubs in Narang -Sire ancestor.

And I would like to just clarify my understanding

from what's been said.

Does the applicant or the owner, a few questions.

My understanding is from what I've heard,

when they originally bought property they stated they were opening it as a pub.

Second question is did they ever open it as a pub? I think not. And the third is do

they have to prove that viability? Because if I look at this map and I'm

showing my teenage years now, in that area it's one of the only pubs in the

South it would be. So I can tell you that in the city in the last 30 years we've

We've lost the Queen's Head in Watermore Road.

We've lost the waggon and horses on London Road.

We've lost the foresters at the bottom of Fair Victoria Road, Queen Street.

So we've, and that's all in that south area.

So everything else.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:48:43

Please, please, please do not interrupt.

Indeed, correct.

Councillor Nikki Ind - 0:48:48

I'm the Odd Fellows in Chester Street.

So all of those pubs were in, were to the size of Lewis Lane as we're looking at it now.

all of the other pubs whilst in the Sire and Cestor town centre are above I'm just

very mindful that this end of Sire and Cestor which I declare an interest I was

brought up in has lost everything down there from that point of view.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:49:14

I'm trying to understand what's the responsibility of the owner so do

Councillor Nikki Ind - 0:49:17

they need to provide us with those liabilities did they ever open it I

don't think they ever did did they say when they bought it they were going to

I think they did. I'm sure I read somewhere in a newspaper that was going to be open.

I've never seen it open since, not that I live in Simon's Hester anymore.

And who's the responsibility on to prove the lack of viability?

I think that's where my concerns are.

In terms of what they said, I've seen the comments that have said from third parties that they were intending to run it as a pub.

It's not been something that's been told to me from the agent, but I'm not there for all those conversations.

And in some ways it doesn't particularly matter for the duration of what I'm looking at.

Officer - 0:50:05

Equally, as far as I'm aware, they have never opened it as a pub since moving into it.

In terms of viability,

it is somewhere, in terms of the report,

whilst

essentially, I haven't gone down the line of agreeing that it's not a viable business.

the line is taken more that they've tried to sell it.

One part of it being that they've tried to sell it

despite the fact that they're saying

they've got in excess of 100 ,000 pounds profit.

And so it's the side of demand which is more demand

for someone to want to run the pub rather than demand.

Because obviously there is a lot of local interest

and people interested in going to the pub there,

but the other side of it that someone has to run it

is the bit we don't have.

But it is also in combination with those other,

the factors of its location with it being just outside the town centre because if it's in the town centre there be policies EC7 and EC8

that would look to secure it as a

town centre use. If it was located further away in terms of policy INF2 it would be stronger

because you wouldn't be as close to other potential facilities, so

the recommendation isn't made based on the oh they tried to sell it and they haven't full stop the end.

it is the other factors or the other considerations that have made the

Councillor Nikki Ind - 0:51:28

recommendation as is. Can I just turn back to say it just seems like

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:51:30

Councillor Nikki Ind - 0:51:31

unfortunately they're on the wrong side of the road so had they been on the

other side of the road Lewis Lane they would be in the town centre when you

look at that map so they're literally just on the wrong side of the road.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:51:44

Equally the town centre boundary was drawn well after the pub existed so to

extent that could have been taken into consideration as part of the local plan

process but I take the point. Councillor Coleman.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:51:54

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:51:58

I think we do need to just cheque that there is would you agree now

following the evidence we've heard from the public speaker that there is no net

public benefit in terms of residential accommodation since both previous owners

of the pub as a pub lived on it and if it's converted into a house that would

be one dwelling house and if it was run as a pub that would be one dwelling so

we have no net benefit between having it as a pub no net residential benefit

whether it's a pub or a single dwelling house it's still either one property

when it's occupied or nil when it isn't can we agree that

Officer - 0:52:50

I would go slightly, I think I put in the end part regarding Paragraph 11, which is

usually our sort of test currently with the five -year landslide, that it doesn't have

it in regard, so there's not a benefit, sort of housing number benefit.

It's a little bit complicated by the fact the current accommodation is only ancillary,

so it's a pub overall, so you have a residential part and the main pub part.

Theoretically there's a question if you're not using the pub part whether you should be occupying the manager accommodation

But no, I don't think I put that down as part of it the public benefit coming more from the overall occupation of the property

Which means it gets maintained and heated and that side rather than an increase in

Rather than an increase in actual housing dwelling units if that makes sense hopefully

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:53:46

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:53:47

Councillor Conlon. I might have two questions. This is more of a question to Harrison because

I can remember this coming up possibly before you had your current role with regard to the

waggon and horses. In passing the waggon and horses when it closed did give a substantial

additional residential accommodation of a desirable type and environmentally friendly.

Very close to the shite in question to this one was the wheat sheaf,

which was such an ancient and valued building, it has turned out it has had to be almost completely dismantled and rebuilt.

But that will also give us additional residential accommodation and indeed it was never brought as an objection to this committee.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:54:35

But as we said before, the question is with regard to that line down the middle of the road

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:54:38

and the fact that we are redoing our local plan and our neighbourhood plan at the town council,

which comes to a vote quite soon I think, which is should we go on,

is it reasonable to continue regarding the boundary of the town centre as a cliff edge

where a policy stops in the middle of the road, even though on reflection one could have drawn the line

around the back garden of the retail premises and industrial premises that exist or existed

on the south side of Cairns Lane and Lewis Lane.

Because I don't think in the modern world having a cliff edge to define your town centre

really reflects the dynamism of modern business.

We've seen the Hopkettle for instance open up as a new pub, a very, very interesting

one, right in the middle of town where nobody thought a pub would ever come.

Business is so alive in Sire and Sester, I'm sure you'd agree, but I'm asking it as a question,

that we're unusual in having so few vacant retail premises and with the occasional bank that takes a while to let, re -let.

Just very few options for people wanting to start up a business because there's so few empty properties now. Wouldn't you agree?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:55:49

Your question is about the cliff edge of the town centre.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:55:56

Yes, if that is what the policy says and that is what the policy map specified was the boundary,

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:56:05

then that is the boundary we have to go off of.

Obviously we have to bear in mind when we talk about this policy we are referring to

the difference in the boundary, we are referring to the difference in policy we apply, i .e.

within that boundary we apply EC8, outside of that boundary we don't.

But effectively, yes, the local plan specifies that boundary, it says development within

that boundaries should be subject to ECAs and development outside of it, it

doesn't apply so I'm afraid yes we are still bound by that adopted

policy. Obviously that's reviewed in the future so be it but currently we have to

take the local plan as it currently reads.

Councillor Bridges.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:56:41

I'm trying to get my head around something which doesn't seem to make sense.

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:56:46

I'm being a local I go into all these pubs

The water Morris the Michaels community group bit mess in the Talbot in Victoria Road that recently closed

But actually it's reopening

That made its business. I think from the B &B side of business

Hardly ever saw any customers in there, but their decision was to reopen with new managers

whereas 12 bells

was usually busy when I went in there.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:57:20

So I don't understand how we can say that the 12 Bells

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:57:24

was not viable when it was far more viable than the Talbot.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:57:28

And the second thing would be to do with,

can we change the bedrooms upstairs

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:57:34

so that instead of being a private residence,

it could become B &B.

Are they allowed to do that?

I mean, they've already got permission for,

is it just the one room?

Essentially, as I think with one of the previous questions, we're not saying the pub isn't

viable from a sort of commercial basis.

We don't have the information to sort of support that.

It was a question of the overall balance otherwise.

What was the second part of your question?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:58:09

So – oh, no, it's on.

Because I'm talking, so it should be on.

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:58:12

Yeah, okay.

So yes, so my second part of my question was they don't have to live above the

property, they could make it more profitable by renting out some of the

rooms. One of which is we have to consider the proposal in front of us,

Officer - 0:58:32

that is what they're asking us to look at. I can also envision there

being some issues with that because it's listed and how you end up rearranging

the rooms but it's not something that's been put forward to us to consider and

such but it's not like I could feedback on obviously they did invest in B &B

accommodation at the end of the garden that's where there's a separate sort of

unit there so they have they tried to do that. Any other questions? I just had a

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:59:01

question. I had a couple of questions actually. How long has it actually been

closed for? How long has it not been functioning? Essentially I have the

Officer - 0:59:13

marketing information for it going I whether it might be there somewhere

unfortunately what I'm aware of is when he essentially was marketed until and I

think the offer came in in June in 2024 so I've seen between then and August is

likely when it stopped trading because that's when it was sold I don't believe

but equally I cannot swear to this that it was operated to as a pub up until

then I don't have it I don't have been told anything to say it wasn't so I

I believe it is around a year and a half, two years.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:59:45

And then can I just ask, if we refuse the application, presumably the applicant could

carry on with the marketing and then if it is continued not to sell as a pub, presumably

the applicant would then be entitled to come back and ask the same question?

Officer - 1:00:06

Yes, I mean, they probably want to continue the marketing but also sort of the viability

to do it in a more sort of having an independent advisor in terms of cost and

then the viability side of things but as with everything yes if it gets refused

today then that is one of their options as their next steps. Thank you very much

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:00:24

and now we'll move on to the more open debate where people can make comments.

Councillor David Fowles - 1:00:32

Councillor Fats. Right thank you Chairman. A lot's been said about where the

boundary is in terms of the town centre and I think the issue is whilst I accept planning

policy, that map that was drawn of Syrens, you will note that all those pubs or eating

and drinking establishments were to the north of that map, not to the south. I did a quick

count. I haven't been in as many pubs as Nick, but I think of the list that was put up, some

Some of them are eating and drinking establishments, not traditional pubs.

I think the list is about seven or eight in total.

I'm a town guide and we do an annual walk around Syrinsester and we go around buildings

that were pubs and just for the record, over 100 years ago there were 80 pubs in Syrinsester.

That's not because they drank more, it's just that there were 80 pubs.

And in the time that I've been involved in Sire and Sester and

being a Councillor, people have quoted pubs that have closed,

members of the public who have quoted pubs that have closed,

but it's got to be between 10 and 20 pubs that have closed.

I think there are about seven pubs,

viable pubs in Sire and Sester with a population that's

increasing in size, which seems crazy.

The first point I want to make is this is not just about eating.

This is a Grade 2 listed free house.

I've been involved in, as I said at the beginning,

trying to fight to save pubs,

as the ward member very eloquently said,

once they're gone, they're gone, they don't come back.

Waggon and horses, we managed to get that deferred,

but then it went through.

Red Lion is an interesting example just outside Poulton,

where they went to appeal on that and failed at appeal.

and correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't been in there for quite a long time, but the owner

of the pub actually lives there and it's his home and he opens the pub on occasion.

So you've got a kind of hybrid model there.

We've got other examples of pubs in St. Francis, I won't take up the committee's time quoting

where if you get the, what was the name of the pub you just mentioned?

The plough where a couple of youngsters have got in there and taken it on.

It's very easy when you have something that's privately owned to create an argument whereby

you put it on the market with agents advice and the price chips down and so on and so

forth.

When it's brewery owned it's a little bit more difficult.

The pub in the village I used to live in, which a member of the public also lives in,

that was closed.

It was owned by Enterprise and the price went down and eventually we got a young couple in there.

So I don't think the argument for viability has been sustained.

I agree totally with Councillor Daryl Corr.

I don't think the public benefit outweighs, is outweighed by this in any way, shape or form.

And this whole issue which we seem to be hanging on about are we going to get a net gain

in terms of the number of houses.

It just seems so easy to be able to take it to a point, get some marketing behind it and then

apply for change of use and bang it's gone. So I 100 %

having listened to the ward member and

the debate today will be voting against this application. Thank you.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:04:02

Councillor Caulley. Oh sorry, Councillor Watson next.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:04:12

Thank you, Chair. I'd like to thank first the speakers, all of the speakers who were very passionate,

and the Office of A &E for preparing our papers on this.

There's been a lot said about the viability of the pub.

It's my feeling, my belief, that the market decides the viability of the pub.

We've had a pub on the market for a couple of years.

It's been put in at a price and the price has been dropped.

No brewery, no private landlord, no community group has come forward to take this on, at

least as far as I'm aware.

They may be ongoing, but nobody has come forward to take this pub on.

I hear and I share the view in every village in the Cotswolds we've lost pubs.

We've lost several in Tethbury just recently.

And I think the grounds for this is that it's changing culture.

People don't go out and drink, or younger people don't go out and drink, as much as

they used to do.

If I go back and I go back to my youth, the weekend started on Thursday night.

It ended on Tuesday evening.

Who can afford to go out and drink five nights in a row?

The world is changing, is what I'm saying.

I enjoyed my time going out five nights a week to the pub, but we can't afford that and that's why

The market forces are driving this and it's not

And

Anybody's wish to close pubs. I don't want anybody to close, but I realise in temporary itself

several clothes because it's just not viable anymore, so

So, with that and unless there's some immediate change, that there is an offer on the table,

I would rather see this listed house used as a residence rather than being a limbo for

the next 10 years.

I would support this, the officer's recommendation.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:06:22

Thank you.

Councillor Caul?

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:06:27

I will disagree actually. I think it's very easy to close a pub or not let a pub open

again. It's by pricing it out of being a pub and it's by pricing it into the hands of a

developer. I think the pub serves as a social pub, isn't it? It's a meeting place. As Nicky

has pointed out, that's a residential area and there isn't a pub now within it. And I

I think it's particularly important in these sort of settlements.

I think the proposal would result in an unjustified loss of local amenity.

And I think providing a house does not outweigh the benefit of that social community asset.

Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:07:10

I think you're also going to increase travel to pubs further away, aren't you?

So we're actually going to increase more traffic.

I think the development would erode

the sustainability of the area.

We've heard that it's a social hub.

It's not just a drinking environment, Ian, as you say.

It is.

It's where darts get played, where the WI meets.

These places are their community assets, not just

drinking establishments, which is the reason I disagree

on this one.

So I think we've failed, there's failure to explore alternative uses.

There's no evidence of community ownership potential.

There's no evidence of potential mixed use.

There's no leasing options.

I just really do believe that this pub has been priced out of existence.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:08:07

Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:08:08

And which is why I would not support, which I could not support the permitting the development.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:08:14

Thanks very much. Can I just remind members of the public, I do appreciate your strong opinions, but if you could remain as quiet as possible so that we can continue with our debate. Thank you very much.

Councillor Braslington is next.

No, it's Councillor Fowls and Councillor Ingham.

Councillor Braslington, did you not want to speak?

No.

Oh sorry, ok. Councillor Fowls, ok.

Councillor David Fowles - 1:08:34

Can we dispel this myth that the Vice Chairman came up with?

Just because a community group doesn't come forward to run a pub, community groups are

not set up to run pubs.

A lot of people show concern and think that it's a great idea to protect and preserve

a pub.

I know from my own experience have been involved in certainly the one in Poulton,

Chedworth, the seven tonnes there, there's a community group there.

But by and large, community groups are not designed, they haven't got the expertise, etc.

You talk about market forces, if this pub, if this application is refused,

it will go back on the market and there will be a price at point, a point at which that property will sell.

Or the applicant will decide to do something else, okay?

When it's gone, it's gone.

And the reason the ward member brought it here,

and I'm on record,

it's not always perhaps over 20 years agreeing with Councillor Harris,

but 100 % I agree with every single thing he says,

and the reasons in the agenda papers on page 13, he brought it here.

And the reason there are people clapping in the background,

and 150 people have expressed concern,

because they want this committee to make a considered decision.

The officers made her decision and recommendation,

and I respect that, but we're here because we've got a broader remit for this community and that's why we're here.

Great, sad about Tetbury,

but I'm thinking about Sire and Sester and the residents of Sire and Sester and 150 people who are

objecting to this application. I think we have a duty to refuse this application.

Are you putting that forward as...

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:10:13

I'd like to put forward a recommendation that we refuse this application. I'm looking for a seconder.

Councillor Caul will second that. Okay thank you very much. Councillor Innes did

Councillor David Fowles - 1:10:28

you want to say anything? Thank you chair. No just really to say that on balance

Councillor Nikki Ind - 1:10:31

looking at everything I've not seen any evidence. I feel like there's not enough

evidence of this non -viable, it's not viable that we've not been produced you

know I've not been shown something other than marketing a marketing different

differential and how maybe that property was marketed by the second estate agent

so for me to support it I would want to see much more evidence of it absolutely

not being viable anymore so currently I can't support that either. Thank you very

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:11:08

much. Councillor Watson did you want to speak again? Yeah a final comment I'm

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:11:11

absolutely delighted that my colleagues from the other side of the house

rejecting market forces and going for community. It's normally where I stand.

Councillor Conlon.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:11:23

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:11:28

Chair, yes, I think there are several material planning reasons why we should refuse this

application and colleagues have already done a great job of identifying them. I think we'll

remember Councillor Nicky -Innes analysis of the map and reminding us of how

unequal the situation now is across our ancestor with the provision of community

facilities in an area mainly water more I think and some Michael's which is not

the most prosperous part of the town but I'm confident that if we agreed to

as a pub again at a suitable price,

that we will find entrepreneurs willing to take it on.

We've seen, as Councillor Fowles mentioned,

the two young men who as tenants of Arcles

at the Plough and Stratton have defied local opinion.

He said, oh, well, we've already got a brilliant pub

and a hotel in our village,

but they've made a great success of it.

It's a welcoming, prosperous, all -age pub.

It's always a pleasure to visit.

Now I also think it's important to stress the objections of the conservation officer,

which usually we give great weight to, and I hope that if we're asked to give reasons,

we'll look at those as well as the viability issues and also the importance of maintaining

and enhancing community facilities in an area which not that long ago, as we know, most

recently lost the wheat chief and this is an opportunity for if we refuse this

and a remarketing for someone else to take forward the 12 bells and perhaps

there rebuild it with the best of both the 12 bells and the wheat chief. It's

something I think that we are safe in doing today. Okay so we're currently

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:13:36

going to vote on the recommendation to refuse this application do you want that

to outline the reasons for refusal before we go to the vote? I kind of need

you to do that for me we've got lack of viability or the lack of evidence of the

viability and the local need hasn't been evident. Are you happy with that as the sole refusal

reason or did you want to touch on anything further? Yes I was just going to suggest that was the main

the main reason. What about this argument about the benefit in terms of there

would be no net gain in terms of houses. Is that, I mean, because that's got to be

Councillor David Fowles - 1:14:08

an argument. I mean the argument, and I was dead against the waggon and horses, but

there were five dwellings as a result of that application going through. Is that

something we should add in there or do you feel that viability, the viability

argument is strong enough? I don't know what policy you'd be relying on.

Effectively the officer's report doesn't rely on the lack of additional residential dwellings.

It's a viability argument hasn't been proven.

Yes, effectively INF1 which requires to be demonstrated there is no local demand for facility or service,

a demand for an appropriate alternative local facility community use for that facility,

which I think the supporting paragraph 4 refers to viability.

So effectively conflict with INF1 would be that viability.

What I'm happy is, I don't know if my seconder is happy.

Yeah, obviously Councillor Collins referred to the heritage aspect but I think for that

I'd need you to sort of let me know why there's heritage harm that is there not outweighed.

We'd have to go back to that first point.

Just go on on viability grounds.

That's fine whatever obviously your member's decision I'm happy to go with whatever members

would like.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:15:15

We've also got the Conservation Officer's objections as well. Would those contribute

to our reasons for objection?

If members feel there would be heritage harm that you'd like to set out, then I can do

that.

I think you'd have to let me know what harm you think there would be and then you could

do the balancing exercise of 215.

We'd have to start, the starting point would be what heritage harm is there and then we

could do the balancing exercise of benefit versus harm.

Councillor Conlon.

Yes, Councillor Conlon.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:15:53

I know that sometimes it's a bad idea to add too many reasons in case the weak ones turn out to undermine the strong ones.

But we can rely on any Inspector at any inquiry to take a comprehensive approach.

In paragraph 713 we have the town council's reference to this proposal being contrary

to the local plan's objectives to maintain mixed use areas and support local services.

It refers to paragraph 98 of the MPPF, which I don't think there will be any harming referring

to in our reasons, provided that it is still paragraph 98 of the MPPF because I'm never

quite certain when the next edition is going to come out and what it says.

but I'm going to trust the town council in this case to be up to date.

And it is certainly true that removing a public house undermines the social role by reducing

opportunities for social interaction and community cohesion, and that was certainly referred

to I think by a public speaker and in down debate.

There might be other reasons, but I think if that's added to the other two, I think

That would be a reasonable spectrum.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:17:04

Is that enough?

That's not the heritage one.

No, so that would just be adding, yeah, paragraph 98.

So that's specifically 98C, which says,

policies and decisions should guard against the unnecessary

loss of value to facilities and services,

particularly where this would reduce the community's ability

to meet stately needs.

So basically that's similar to our INF2 policy

in terms of avoiding the loss of community assets.

So if we're happy with that being the scope

of the refusal reason.

Yes. I mean I can include that in the issue but it's not a heritage refusal.

Okay are we all happy with the reasons for refusal, recommending refusal? In that

case we're going to go on to the vote so that we're voting on to overturn

the officer's recommendation and to refuse this application. So that's all we...

So for the sake of clarity, are we voting to refuse the officer's recommendation?

We are. We're voting to refuse this application, Councillor Fosk.

Or do we vote to refuse?

If you want to refuse the application, you vote green.

Green.

Okay.

I'm wearing a green colour line, so...

Well, it's the one on the left.

Okay, so we have the vote to refuse the application.

We have nine who agree to refuse the application.

Wait a minute.

Can I just clarify my vote?

Your vote is recorded as being against refusal.

No, I voted no before.

Okay, can you change that?

You want to refuse the application, Councillor Bresson, is that right?

Okay. So we have eight people. The application is refused with eight in agreement that the application should be refused and one abstention.

So that application is refused.

members of the public don't want to stay. You are welcome to stay for the rest of the

committee if you want to. Otherwise, if you wouldn't mind leaving an order, madam.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:19:38

members of the planning committee, we're going to take five minutes for a comfort break,

okay? Be back in five minutes, a half past three, or you won't be able to vote.

8 25/03700/FUL - The Twelve Bells, 12 Lewis Lane, Cirencester.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:19:58

Okay, we're back onto the live stream.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:20:48

So if you could all sit down and behave yourselves,

that would be wonderful.

Okay, so we're now moving on to agenda item nine,

which is permission in principle

9 26/00072/PLP - Land at Cerney Wick, Cirencester.

for up six dwellings for land at Cerny Wick, Cirencester.

The applicant is Kites Enterprises Limited.

The case officer is Andrew Moody

and the ward member is Councillor Evermy.

So can I ask Mr. Moody to go ahead with his update?

Are you ready?

I will in a moment.

Oh, okay.

I've got a funny echo coming through my laptop

and we can't work out why.

If you can work that out, Tyler, I have no idea.

All the microphones are on zero.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:21:57

Officer - 1:22:12

Are you good to go?

I will go straight to the presentation.

So the site is the area outlined in red.

It's in the southern half of the village of Cernywick.

The fields to the north form a buffer between the northern part of the village and the southern

part of the village.

So a little greater detail.

The application site is the area outlined in red upon the site.

As you can see there's a few buildings on the site relating to the current equestrian

use of the property which you'll see photographs in a few moments.

The report refers to a couple of recent decisions to grant new residential development within

the village which have been permitted and regard policy DS3 in the local plan.

Therefore Sir Newick's been considered a non -principal settlement.

So the southern area was the site in your report referred to as land at

Cernywick Lane with two dwellings being built upon it. The area towards the east

and the right -hand side the east of the application site two dwellings have now

been built there. That was land that was in the ownership of the Crown Public

House to the north. So we have had four houses built within a short distance of

site as per your report the nearest of the two dwellings to the rear of the

crown is approximately 30 metres from the application site and the width of

the playground separating the two dwellings to the south with the

application site is approximately 13 metres so this is one of the two stable

buildings upon site that is the other

That's the viewer on the northern boundary.

So the trees and hedgerow in this area here are from the northern boundary of the site.

That's the parcel of land to the south.

The application site also includes the area of land beyond the line of hedgerow in the

middle of the photograph.

That is one of the two dwellings that's been built on the former allotment site on the

opposite side of the playground within the village.

Those are the houses that are on the opposite side of the lane through the village, opposite

the southern part of the application site.

They can see the two dwellings that have been built to the rear of the crown.

and there is the crown itself which is directly on the opposite side of the

highway. Therefore chair the recommendation is for

permission and principle to be granted. Thank you chair. Thank you very much. Now

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:25:07

can I ask Mr. Seymour to come forward again to speak. You know the score?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:25:30

So you've got three minutes as you know. Thank you. Hello again. The application

Applicant/Agent - 1:25:34

has been recommended for approval by the case officer so I don't need to repeat

their assessment only to summarise that the permission and principal

applications can only be determined on three matters. That's the location of the

development, whether the residential land use is acceptable and the amount of

development. The case officers concluded that the application is acceptable on

all three counts. Therefore I'd just like to focus members attention on the reasons

the application was referred to committee. The board member raised three

main concerns. Firstly the proposals impact on the character and form of the

village however the layouts and number of dwellings will not be decided until

the technical details consent application. There's nothing about this

application to suggest that a development cannot be consistent with

the character and form of the village. Secondly a highways objection on the

previous application was highlighted by the ward member but this would make for

reasonable refusal reasons, especially as highways have raised no objections to

this application. Thirdly, the War Member considers the proposal to be a major

increase in housing beyond what was planned for the village, but there is no

specific number of dwellings allocated to smaller villages like Cerny Wick in

the existing local plan. Policy DS3 allows for additional housing in smaller

villages to a degree that officers consider is proportionate. Cerny Wick

CERNEWIC currently comprises 52 dwellings increasing this to potentially 58 dwellings

an increase of 11 .5 percent has been judged by officers to be proportionate especially

if you consider this in the context of the numbers being proposed in the council's draught

local plan which seeks to concentrate housing delivery in settlements like Cerniwick which

are outside the AOMB. For example the council are proposing 420 new dwellings

in Down Ampney and 170 in Preston. These are increases of 181 and 191 percent

respectively, much greater than the 11 .5 percent growth that this application

proposes for Cerny Wick. For these reasons and those already set out in the

officers recommendation I request that you vote to approve this application.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:27:54

Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Now can I ask Councillor Evermy as the

Ward member to come forwards. You've got five minutes to speak as you know. Thank

Public Speaker - 1:28:12

you chair. Thank you members. I want to start by saying and advising members

that I live in Cerny Wick and I've lived there for the last 23 years so I am very

familiar with the site that we're looking at today. I've also been the

Councillor for that area since May of 2019. I worked alongside with officers on

both of the other two applications that the case officer has introduced to you.

Both of them you will notice were large,

essentially four or five bedroom homes.

And in addition, there's another one where a bungalow

in the village has been demolished and replaced

by another four or five bedroom homes.

So we've had five homes that look very similar

to those ones that you've just seen.

My apologies that I wasn't able to be with those of you

who were in the village last week looking at the site

as I was away on holiday.

But I hope members found that visit useful and a chance to appreciate the rural nature

and the size of the village and its linear form of settlement where it has essentially

green gaps in between housing development.

I want to disagree with what has just been said by the applicant and I think indeed by

the case officer.

So, any week is not a sustainable location for development.

It has one pub, which you've seen, which is now operating very successfully, which, but

it only operates successfully because it attracts a large number of people to come to the village

to eat and drink there.

It's not sustainable based on the local, they could be on tell how much some of us might

like to go there.

There's not enough of us as you've heard in terms of the size of the village to sustain

a successful pub. The only other facility in the village is a church which has

services once a month. So I think really what I'd like to draw members attention

to is the objections put forward by the parish council and there was

also and members may not have seen this a very detailed objection put forward by

resident of the village, Mr. Rees. He makes the point about the potential loss of green

space that we're talking about here within a village and what attracts people to the

village in the sense of the nature of the village that would be lost if this land were

developed. He also makes reference to the fact that there is an active badger set on

that site. There are hedgehogs, there are bats, there are reptiles. Indeed, as I live

and drive on the lane behind the site.

And in the last month I've seen deer jumping off the lane

into that site on more than one occasion.

So it is a really important green space within the village.

And it is a prominent location opposite the pub.

And one of the attractions of the village is the pub

and it's rural setting.

I think what he highlights

and what I would like to draw members attention to

is the potential adverse impacts of this development.

It isn't a sustainable location

and I referenced in my referral that highways,

two years ago on the adjoining site,

sorry, four years ago on the adjoining site,

essentially said this isn't a sustainable location.

Nothing has changed in that time.

In terms of a dependency on car use,

there's no bus route in Cerny Wick.

As I said, there's no facilities.

the nearest facilities are either in Downatney or South Cerny in terms of shopping or other

facilities other than a public house. It would be a significant loss of green space. I would argue,

and he argues, that the village character is determined by the nature of land such as this,

and that essentially by removing that there would be risk to the ecology of the village.

So I would like you to consider the adverse impacts

and that I think would outweigh the potential benefits.

We've heard a bit about the draught local plan.

That's not material as you make this decision.

I would like to emphasise to you,

you need to look at the settlement and the proposal.

And I would also like to say that whilst the layout

will be decided, if you agree to grant this,

essentially what you are saying is,

and you will come back and a technical details application will come in almost

certainly for six dwellings on that site and the intensity of that would be in

in the settlement of the nature of Cernywick so I would ask you to refuse

this application thank you. Thank you very much. So we had a site inspection

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:33:14

briefing but just before we move on to the site inspection briefing can I just

remind you that this is looking at permission in principle

and the matters we can look at,

we can discuss a land use location

and amount of development.

Do you want to add anything else to that?

Those are the three considerations that we can have.

Yes.

Does that include sustainability chair?

Insofar as it relates to location, yes.

Okay, so we had a site inspection briefing and Councillor Fowles, do you want to comment

on what you found there?

I hope I haven't been singled out for special treatment here.

Councillor David Fowles - 1:34:01

We can't, I don't suppose we could go back to the map, could we?

I know that means you won't have to look at me, which is probably an advantage, but there

was a map which, no, there was a Google map.

Just to illustrate, I'm a former resident of Down Antony which was quoted by the applicant.

For those of us who don't remember the applicant, he is a former officer so it's good to see

him here and other guys. In my own view Down Antony has been destroyed by the number of

houses that have been put there. I totally endorse what the ward member has said. When

we walked around the site, it is clearly characterised, that village, by its open spaces. And if you

were to fill in that land, whereas if that land was potentially anywhere else, in a small

hamlet of 52 houses, I think that would significantly add to, and to track rather, from the open

space and the character of the village. But it is a large site and I could imagine six

houses on there but as the wall members also said they would be four or five bedroom houses.

It's a huge site and also I think it's worth remembering for those members who weren't able

to go on the site that it's not just those six you've got to add in the other four and the pub

and it effectively becomes the new development. The pubs you know had a major refit over over

the I remember when it was considerably it wasn't a nice place to go just to remind the vice chairman

that there are pubs that come back, okay? And the four new dwellings also, so when you

look at the six, you've got to look at the ten. So whilst I felt the site was a good

site for six, I thought in this particular location, it would destroy the open spaces

of that village. And what, because I've got to leave and I'm sure your permission to do

that, what I would like to also say, I'm very wary of, if I may use this opportunity, the

whole concept of giving approval, planning and principle because that's the thin end

of the wedge. Giving approval to something we don't actually know and if members remember

in Shedworth we had exactly the same situation there where we were asked to give planning

and principle and we actually refused that application. So whilst I like the site, it's

in for me that wrong location. I think everything the ward member said about protecting the

open spaces and ecology etcetera, I would totally agree with him. Thank you.

Oh and I was asked to mention thank you very much for lending me a dog poo bag

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:36:47

when we went on site meeting thank you. Welcome. Would you excuse me now? Yes of

course thank you very much thanks for your contribution Councillor Caul.

Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:36:59

Thank you chair and I'll try and keep mine short. First of all

Suniwic, I need to spend more time in south of Sarnast

of four to five bedroom executive homes built in the village already.

That site's a big site.

Six homes, I mean, will we really end up with just six homes on there?

We're certainly not going to get any social housing, are we?

It just seems that it's a big space in the middle of the village and 50 dwellings already.

And I think Councillor Fowles pointed out when we looked at the map already quite a lot of the centre has already been developed

And this would almost make it

You know people won't be wanting to go to the village when it's it's it's a built -up environment like that

I mean a lot of space already been lost already allotments

It sounds like allotments already been lost in the village

And I think losing this big green space will change the character of the of the village

Forever that was my observations of going there and also the the point about sustainability

I'm in transport, no bus services.

I'm not surprised because I went off on a strange route out of the village and it seemed

to be single track roads with small passing spaces.

So that again, even more traffic going into the village along those lanes I can imagine

would cause some problems.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

So I also went on the site inspection briefing.

It's a lovely little hamlet essentially.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:38:56

It's quite amazing that it's got a pub that size, it seemed to me, in their hamlet.

Obviously, Councillor Evermy is continuing to support the pub, so that's good news.

Beautiful walks through the village, I think.

Beautiful views across that site.

It's lovely rural prospect.

However, we saw that new houses have already been built.

There are four new houses that have already been built.

And they're sort of large executive style houses, four or five bedrooms I should think.

And it would be quite disappointing to get more development like that in this village.

I think what small villages need is smaller houses.

and so I was quite surprised that the request was only for six houses on this

very large plot and which is something I'm going to raise in questions with

later with with our officer so yeah I'll be very interested in how the debate

goes and I'll contribute further thoughts as we go along so now I'll open

the oh sorry yeah

Members I'm just going to jump in because I think a few members have mentioned

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:40:24

We don't know that these are going to be large executive star houses

This could be one two -bedroom house or it could be six ten -bedroom houses

We don't have that information in front of us is not a material consideration of this application

So I just think members have to bear that in mind

We're looking at a proposal description development is permission of principle for the construction of up to six dwellings

So I just think just to bear that in mind

I'm not saying that you know that is how you're judging it, but just because it's been mentioned a couple of times

I thought I'd just clarify that now.

It's these could be small units, they could be large,

they could be a mix, they could not,

but we don't have control.

That's a technical details consent matter.

This is the principle that 26 dwelling's on this site.

So just to sort of clarify that

before we jump into questions.

Thank you very much.

Sorry, I feel I've misled you slightly there.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:41:04

There you go, Councillor Harris.

We're moving on to questions now, thanks.

Thank you.

I think very pertinent point from Harrison there.

Councillor Joe Harris - 1:41:11

So unless I've missed something,

can you confirm that we don't have

five -year housing land supply at present? Yes that is correct as you appreciate. If

you look at the planning history you'll see those permission and principal

Officer - 1:41:22

refused in 2022. Obviously at that time we had the 7 .2 year housing land supply.

We don't now obviously as we should all be aware it's 1 .8 years. We've also got to

take consideration that the site is not subject to any heritage designation.

There's no conservation area in the village. It's not subject to any

landscape designation. It's not subject, it's not part of the Colswood National

landscape. So the reason why officers have come to this recommendation is not

entirely but partially on the basis that if we refuse this application then we're

going to find ourselves arguing with inspector how it's does the tilted

balance is not applicable here if you're not aware what the tilted balance is

that's paragraph 11 D of the National Planning Policy Framework and with our

housing land supply situation we do not consider that we could defend that as

appeal. You know if the site was in the national landscape then yes we might be

able to do so. We've accepted new residential developments in this village

prior to the five -year housing land supply issue hitting the wall for the

council. There was considered to be a non -principal settlement. Now the

previous application on this site said actually refer to policy DS4 but

that's when we had a housing land supply and those policies are now out of date.

So if you're minded to refuse this application today we can't refer to DS3

your DS4 within that, we're going to have to argue that it's contrary to the MPPF.

But unfortunately, the circular argument is the MPPF then refers to the tilted balance,

and then you're then saying, well, it's harmful, but it's not in the landscape designation.

It's not got any heritage designation.

Just one more.

So that's a very comprehensive answer.

I think you've answered nearly everything there.

That's what I tried to do.

A question to you then.

So in your professional opinion, there's no MPPF policy showstopper, which is like, you

which is going to stop us basically from refusing this in your view?

Not at this stage, no.

Councillor Joe Harris - 1:43:19

I mean, let's say I'll just expand what Harrison said a few moments ago.

Officer - 1:43:22

Yes, it's up to six dwellings, but we can only determine that if this is permitted by you this afternoon

or if it's refused and then allowed on appeal.

We won't know what's actually proposed on there until the TmTICAL details consent application comes in.

So, and not to room three, we do have policy H1 in the local plan, which talks about a

mix of house types.

So yes, the two sets of two dwellings that have been permitted nearby are large executive

style houses.

I didn't deal with the two to the south.

I did the two at the rear of the crown.

I can't quite remember if they were three or four.

I think they were four bedrooms.

But then, double edged sword, isn't it?

Because part of that was the income from that was to support the retention of the pub within

the village.

So, you know, that was part of the reason, the rationale,

why permission was granted there.

But we're not going to know what's proposed on the site.

As Harrison said, it could be one dwelling put on there.

It could be, you know, six dwellings.

We don't know that at this point.

The question is, is this acceptable as a matter

of principle for new residential development?

And whilst we acknowledge and the report acknowledges the

decision in 2022, the goalposts have moved significantly for us as a council in terms

of housing and land supply.

Thank you. Councillor Bressington.

My question has been answered, thank you.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:44:49

Great. Councillor Watson.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:44:57

Thank you, Chair. I was very touched by Mike's Bambi storey going through the lanes in Sydney.

The Ecology Office or Biodiversity doesn't raise any real concerns, is that correct?

It's not part of it.

Yeah, thank you, Joe.

They can't at this stage because there's absolutely no

Officer - 1:45:22

requirement for any ecological surveys to be submitted at the

plant permission and principle stage.

Similarly, there's absolutely no requirement for them to

demonstrate how they provide 10 percent biodiversity net gain

either if this application gets granted and then we get a

technical details consent application.

And yes, there will be ecological surveys required and

they will have to provide the mandatory 10 percent minimum

biodiversity net gain, but that's part of the floor of this type of application.

As I was discussing with the three members who attended the SIB,

is that we can't ask for that at this stage.

Thank you.

Councillor Conlon.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:46:04

Officer - 1:46:06

I think this is going to be an interesting site because on the one hand, it's unsustainable.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:46:14

The community is not a village, it's a collection of modern and not so modern properties in

a slightly isolated part of the countryside.

Slightly closer than you might think by road to Syrens system in terms of journey time,

but otherwise, you know, it could almost be in Wiltshire of course.

Serious point here is it's not sustainable because it hasn't got any of the normal measures.

What it has got is a load of big houses.

The only way we can improve its sustainability is by using our planning powers to improve

the mix or have a greater variety of house sizes.

In other words, I would be inspired, theoretically, theoretically, to refuse this on the basis

that achieving a sustainable community...

I'm going to arrive at a question.

You bet.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:47:04

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:47:10

Because I'm going to say, is it fair to say an unsustainable community of this sort can

be made more sustainable by increasing, by requiring a greater mix of house sizes?

In other words, instead of six, 12 smaller properties of different sizes, including bungalows,

so that people don't have to move away when they're young getting a job because they can

move into a small and they don't have to move away when they're old needing to downsize.

Once you've got a community where people have the option of staying, it becomes more sustainable.

You don't need any more detail. Can we, has anybody ever used sustainability in that way

to help build communities? I think they have. So that's my question.

Officer - 1:47:54

I think in view of our housing land supply, I'm not necessarily sure that I'd like to

argue that an appeal. I'd also like to highlight obviously I'm going to take

members back I'm pretty certain it I'm not sure if it was in this council it

might have been in the previous one but the quite a few of you would have been

on the committee at that time when we permitted person principal for two

dwellings at Driffield so that had the same agent Driffield's got 32 dwellings

and a church. That was considered acceptable by committee and the argument

also made then which is perfectly legitimate now because it's still a

paragraph from the MPPF is about development in smaller villages helping

facilities in nearby villages and part of the argument used at Driffield was

well down Antleys nearby and South Cern is nearby so in looking at the MPPF there

would also be an argument here that additional housing here might help the

facilities in South Cerny for example which isn't a great distance away it's

within the parish after all in terms of promoting sustainable form of

development and promoting retention of existing facilities in that principal

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:49:12

settlement. Thank you. Any other questions? Can I just ask something? So if we were

to grant permission in principle for six houses with the applicant then having

listen to our discussion particularly for Councillor Collins and passionate

plea would the applicant then be able to come back and say actually I would like

to put 12 smaller houses on it oh that would have to be completely separate

Officer - 1:49:37

application from this PIP I'm going to guess if a technical deep well the if

permission in prison was granted then it's up to six so therefore technical

details consent would have to be for anything between one and six dwellings

if somebody was to come back and say okay I hear what you say we're not

going to put large executive type houses on there we'll put some you know pair of

two beds and detached properties and a couple of three beds and detached

properties on there as well and increase the number then that would have to be a

separate application determine that so merits at that time. Thank you very much

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:50:06

if there's no further questions we'll move on to comments. Yeah thank you I

Councillor Joe Harris - 1:50:14

I know the site relatively well. I visited Mike a fair few times and got lost in the pitch black.

It's a beautiful little village.

Visited the pub.

I have visited the pub on more than one occasion, yes.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:50:24

Councillor Joe Harris - 1:50:25

If this gets permitted and eventually it's built out, then to be honest it should be called Angela Rainaway, shouldn't it?

because ultimately what happened in December 2024 is that the government fundamentally shifted the goal posts when it came to our five -year housing land supply,

with their update to the MPPF.

And I think what they showed in that is that this whole idea about sustainability is quite right.

It's an absolute, you know, some really good points have been made.

And in an ideal world, I'm sure the government would agree with that.

But the government has said that they're not bothered about an ideal world because they think there's a housing emergency.

and so they've shifted the goal posts which has had a material change in our

five -year housing land supply and the knock -on effect of that is that

applications like this are almost impossible to refuse and as we've heard

we don't know the detail of this application it's a it's a permission in

principle that we're looking at so you know whatever happens an application

will come back and it might be that it's quite unacceptable some of the detail

but ultimately we're not here to design or comment on an application in future

We are here to look at what is in front of us.

We are not on this committee as politicians.

We are here to interpret policy, to challenge officers on the assessments that they have

made and look at the application in front of us.

I am looking at this thinking some really good points have been made by the ward member,

by colleagues, but the issue here is that if we refuse it today and this goes to appeal,

our officers are saying we haven't got a leg to stand on, quite frankly.

That is the challenge that we face.

So I have every sympathy with residents, with the board member

and with colleagues who don't think this site is suitable to

develop.

I don't, but the reality is we have to interpret in the policy

framework that we're working in the realities of that.

And the issue here is that if we go to appeal, it will almost

certainly go against this council because our officers

are telling us that now.

You know, you have to look at our 1 .8 year housing land

supply.

That's far beyond the five year housing land supply that we're

supposed to be.

So we haven't got a leg to stand on.

And I know that is a very bitter pill to swallow and unacceptable,

but that is the reality of the situation that we are in.

So I think actually the policy backdrop is very clear.

If we do look to refuse this today,

then it will cost the council quite a lot of money

in appeal fees, I would fear, down the line.

So yes, the government have got a bit of a gun to our head,

but that is the framework that we're delivering in,

or we're living in, sorry.

And I think if we refuse this today,

we're going to have a real fight and challenge on our hands.

But that's not to say there aren't issues with the scheme.

There clearly are.

But in the policy framework that we're working in,

we haven't got a leg to stand on, I fear.

Thank you, Councillor Ihnd.

Thank you, Chair.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:53:15

Yeah, really, just to reiterate everything

that Councillor Harris has just said,

Councillor Nikki Ind - 1:53:17

I wrote down hands are tied by decisions made at government.

But it seems to me I've looked at 10 .2

where we've talked about the tilted balance being applied.

I've looked at the conclusion at 11 .1.

which is clearly shown we don't have a five -year housing land supply and

Without that we risk

Going to appeal and losing appeal and I think it's a small to follow

Bitter pill to swallow was the right word really because I have every sympathy with the residents with the ward member

It's not ideal, but it's almost

well

It appears now that our hands are tied

and we're stuck between a rock and a hard place and that's difficult for us and for our residents.

Thank you, Councillor Watson.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:54:10

Thank you, Chair.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:54:18

I'm only going to say this because he's left the room, but I agree with Councillor Fowles.

I don't know cheating and telling him that I agree with him, please counsel call

There's no meat on the bones here

But that the argument or Joe's argument or the five -year housing supply is a valid argument that we have to think about

We can't not think about it

And for me that in this particular case that would tilt the balance

and I would support the officer's recommendation in this case.

Okay, do we have somebody who's prepared to second?

Yes, Councillor Bridges.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:55:05

While I agree with the Tilt -A -Balance argument,

Councillor Nick Bridges - 1:55:13

in the future this is going to grow, this village,

and it needs a centre, it needs a village green,

it needs a place to put the shop, to have a centre.

In say if we say yes to this development we've missed that opportunity and we

should really be thinking about well what is going to happen in 30 years time

when it does grow into being the next South Cerny or whatever.

Okay I see council anyone else want to make a comment?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:55:44

Councillor Caul.

Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:55:51

Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:55:54

As Jo said about the housing plan, housing supply amount is absolutely valid.

Also future applications, you know, we are going to have things, situations like this time and time again.

But at least in certain parts we are going to have the national landscape that will hopefully then tilt the balance the other way.

and protect our rural communities from this sort of, sorry, sorry, from other

sorts of developments. I just feel that, I totally appreciate what you're saying, but

this is a huge part of the centre of this village which is why I think it's

been important that we've, we went on a site visit and we've been able to

discuss that here today.

Anybody else want to make a comment? In that case I'm looking for, looking for

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:56:35

somebody who would like to second Councillor Watson's suggestion that we

support the OCCO officers recommendation to permit. Would anyone like to second

that recommendation? Councillor Harris. If nobody else has got anything else to

contribute to the debate we will move to the vote to permit permission in

principle for up to six dwellings at the land of Cerny Wick as recommended by our

Officer.

We're missing one person 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

That should be right. We were nine with Councillor Pals.

I think we were ten with Councillor Pals.

Daryl.

You were at the top, Councillor Watson.

Councillor Bair.

Ray, your vote hasn't gone in.

Right, yeah.

Brilliant.

Has that gone in there?

Yes, got it. Okay, so that application is permitted a 7 4 and 2 abstentions.

So that application is permitted. Thank you very much. So we're moving on to

10 25/00006 - Tree Preservation Order - 55 Thomas Street, Cirencester

agenda item 10 which is a tree preservation order at 55 St. Thomas

Street siren sister. The tree officer is Justin Hoffs who will now give us an

update. Thank you very much.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:58:49

You can talk among yourselves just for a minute while Justin gets himself set up.

Officer - 2:01:31

Thank you, Chair. I have nothing further to add to my report, but as always to assist

members I will summarise the situation. So members today are being asked to consider

a TPO made to protect a mature Copper Beach Street growing on the frontage of 55 Thomas

Street in Sirencester. You are being asked to consider whether to confirm the TPO, in

other words make it permanent, or to not confirm the TPO. The recommendation is that the TPO

is confirmed. This is the location of the tree. Thomas Street is a busy road located

north of the town centre of Syrinsester but within Syrinsester Conservation Area. From

previous committee meetings I'm sure members will recall that most trees in a conservation

area are afforded a degree of protection similar to that as if they were protected by a TPO.

Just as a reminder, the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act requires anyone

wanting to undertake works on most trees in a conservation area to submit a notice prior

to undertaking the proposed works.

So the notice is different from an application, they are telling the council what they want

to do to the tree.

The purpose of the notice is to give the council a maximum of six weeks to decide whether to

object to the works by making a TPO, not object to the works and inform the

applicant with a no objection decision letter will let the six weeks period

lapse and after which the applicant can undertake the works. On September 30th

last year the council received a notice to fell the Beech tree subject to this

A copy of that notice is at Annex B of my report.

Three objections to the notice to fell the tree were submitted to the council.

Following receiving the notice, I visited sites to assess whether the tree would be

worthy of a TPO.

The council uses a TPO assessment which follows government guidance.

Government guidance states that when considering whether trees should be protected by a TPO,

Authorities are advised to develop ways of assessing the amenity value of the trees in a structured and consistent way.

The assessment form that Cotswold District Council uses is at annex C of my report.

To assess the amenity value of the trees, the Council judges the public visibility of the trees,

the arboricultural quality of the trees, the life expectancy of the trees subject to the notice, and the impact to removal.

So there you can see the beech tree is clearly a prominent tree with obvious public visibility

from a number of vantage points up and down Thomas Street.

I estimate it's getting on for 20 metres tall.

The condition of the tree when I assessed it was healthy or as to be expected with no

significant structural or physiological risk features apparent.

The tree is good life expectancy. I would describe it as reaching full maturity with

no symptoms of over maturity or decline yet. I would say the tree is at least 80 to 100

years old so replacing the benefits the tree currently provides is going to take a very

long time if the tree was felled and another planted. I think a key thing to note here

is that with a conservation area notice, it's different to a TPO application.

The Councillor has no powers to insist on a replacement tree,

following a submission of a notice to fella tree and conservation area

where if the tree is protected by a TPO and we allow consent to remove the tree,

we can insist on a replacement tree.

So the impact of the removal of the tree

would be significantly detrimental to the conservation area.

Mine assessment indicated that the tree is worthy of a TPO.

Why is that on that? How do I go back?

We're missing the plan.

Trust me, there is a TPO plan and it has plotted that beech tree.

So the TPO was made on 28th of October last year

and as required all interested parties, so that's the owner of the tree and adjoining

landowners, were served with a copy of the TPO and what is called a Regulation 5 Notice.

On the regulation 5 notice the council must state the reasons for making a TPO.

The TPO is also available for members of public to view online or in person at council offices.

The reasons for making the TPO quite simply are stated there, section 211 notice, there's

submitted to fell the tree the tree contributes significantly to public visual immunity and

locality the roof of the tree will degrade the conservation area the tpo ensures that the tree

is fully considered in any future decisions that affect it so the tpo takes effect immediately but

it must be confirmed or otherwise within six months of it being made once the tpo is made

there's a statutory 28 -day period for comments of objections or support to be made and the council

has a legal obligation to thoroughly consider objections and other representations before

deciding whether to confirm the TPO or not. This is why the matter has been put forward

before committee today. One objection to the making of the TPO received

and that's at Annex F of my report. I'll summarise the objection. It has three

elements. One, the tree is out of context on the street. Two, the tree causes maintenance

issues for neighbouring properties such as the clearance of roofs and gutterings

and it impedes light and three there was concern about the risks associated with

falling branches. I responded to each element in my report but again I'll

summarise briefly now for you. With regard to context my opinion is that

context is a somewhat ambiguous term. It's correct that beech trees are commonly

found in woodlands, parks and larger open spaces. However, it is not uncommon to find

mature beech trees in urban areas, particularly ornamental cultivars such as Copper Beech.

There are a small number of mature beech in and around the urban area of Cirencester.

The section of Thomas Street in which the tree is grown is not particularly narrow and

canopy of the tree has been able to develop a somewhat natural and

uninhabited form. In regards to maintenance issues and impeding of light, I

would say that the tree predates the adjacent residential properties. It

wasn't as big as it is now but it was clearly a sizable tree when those

properties were built around about the mid 20th century I would say. And

therefore it's reasonable to say that occupants upon taking up residence would

have anticipated the need for routine cyclical management, clearing leaves and such like.

Being deciduous, the tree will not cast shade in the winter, but it will cast shade on only

one frontage of the house.

The rear of the house will have no shade.

My opinion, the seasonal disbenefits of the tree do not outweigh the overall benefits

of the tree that the tree gives the the wider area. With regards to the final

element of the objection that the risks associated with the trees I've spoken at

length before our planning committee and provided details in my report that the

overall risk to human safety from trees is low. Given the significant benefits

trees provide particularly large trees their management should be proportionate

to their setting. In my opinion the felling of this tree because it is large and may at some point in

the future shed a branch or largely is not proportionate. A reasonable approach to reducing

the risks this large tree or any large trees pose whether it's protected or not is the premier of

the inspections and appropriate remedial works based on the findings of any inspections which

the council in all likelihood would grant consent for.

So the making of the TPO does not prevent future applications for works and such applications

would be treated on their merits.

So to sum up, confirming the TPO, the tree provides substantial public amenity in a conservation

area.

Confirming the TPO does not prevent applications for future works being made.

however not confirming the TPO will allow the removal of this tree and

significantly degrade conservation area. I'm happy to take questions I will say

I usually wear hearing aids up there at the fixers so you may have to shout or

even text me. Thank you very much. Councillor Harris would you like to speak?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:10:48

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:11:00

Councillor Harris is the ward member in which this tree is located.

Thank you chair and I believe some of you have been to see it. Yes this came came

Ward Member - 2:11:07

across my radar a couple of three weeks ago asking if I'd like to speak to it

and I noticed that there was an objection to it and I noticed that apart

from the three objections to the felling there wasn't any anybody speaking in

support so I contacted various members locally and bearing mind that this is

school holidays, that was quite difficult. I spoke to members of the civic society and

I spoke to two officers of the civic society. Unfortunately, the people who make the decision

about issuing a formal response were away, but certainly the four members, two of whom

were former chairs, thought that this treaty should be protected.

Looking at the objection, there is some sympathies, of course. I disagree with the context. This

This is a healthy and clearly valued tree, not just by those objecting to the felling,

but also to the tree officer who we pay to protect trees in our district and look after

the healthy ones and sadly deal with the ones that are not healthy.

But this is a healthy tree.

The maintenance issue I sympathise with as well, leaves falling down in gutters and so

on and so forth, the shade it might provide, which with increased climate change might

actually be a blessing in the future and various other things that the

management required from the tree and I do empathise with that but these houses

I think were built in the 1960s so they're nearly about the same age as me

quite young and that would have been a 50 year old tree then so you know it's

not perfectly foreseeable as the officer has pointed out what's going what could

could occur down the line a bit like moving next to an airport and going my

goodness, there are aeroplanes taking off here.

I'm afraid I don't buy into the safety risks of a tree.

If we cut down every healthy tree because it was in a city

and near people, then we'd be in a terrible situation.

So I think you should listen to the tree officer.

He's the expert.

We pay to do these things.

It doesn't preclude managing it, and it

doesn't preclude pruning it and looking after it in the future.

And I hope you'll accept the officer's recommendation.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do we have any questions for the tree officer?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:13:28

Councillor Braslington.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Justin. Very comprehensive report as usual.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:13:36

The tree is very large and I was wondering about the extent of any

roots that might cause damage to houses. I know in your report you say there isn't any, but

how many properties do you look at to assess damage? Is it the nearest house or

Two or three, either side.

Officer - 2:14:00

So the issue of damage caused by roofs, it tends to come, it's very difficult to predict.

We will react, it's usually dealt with through household insurance and if there is damage they will submit evidence,

which is crack monitoring, level monitoring, stuff like that.

And if the damage is proven, then one of the appropriate courses of action could be root pruning or even tree removal.

At this stage, we haven't had any evidence submitted of tree root related damage to many structures.

Certainly it will have cracked the small plant roots in, but again,

I think removing the tree in response to that is perhaps not proportionate.

Any other questions?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:14:54

Can I just clarify who owns the tree?

Whose responsibility is it for dealing with it,

maintaining it, et cetera, et cetera?

It is actually owned by the property at 55 Thomas Street.

Officer - 2:15:08

So they will be there responsibly.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:15:16

Thank you very much. Moving on, if there are any questions to debate, comments?

Councillor Inte. Thank you, Chair. It strikes me that the tree

Councillor Nikki Ind - 2:15:25

was clearly there before the house was built and the house was bought knowing that the

tree was in their ownership. I can see from the photograph that clearly a couple of doors

where the other tree is clearly some tree works have taken place there. I would

be really it would be really sad to see the loss of a tree like this, a

perfectly healthy tree, but maybe it's about some maintenance that might be

required but I think we need to do everything we can to protect it because I

know that within my own ward I have a lot of trees in a conservation area and

ever emailing back to the tree officer saying I know you can't insist on

replanting a tree because it's only a conservation area and it's a real bonus

when it's a TPO and you can say no if it's really got to go then there has to

be a replacement made and I think that's something that you know if in the future

something was to go wrong here and it wasn't well you would want I would hate

see there not to be anything there.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:16:35

Councillor Harris. Thank you yeah I mean it does feel somewhat throwing the baby

Councillor Joe Harris - 2:16:40

out with the bathwater isn't it I mean you can look at that photo and go yes

clearly clearly it's very big and probably needs a bit of a prune but to

fell the thing I think would be quite unacceptable actually I think the key

thing is I'd say these trees and landmarks actually in Syrins Esther you

know I've always I've always been aware of them I've lived in the town most of

my life the sort of part of the town if you like you can see them from you know

if you go to the church tower if you go to some of the neighbouring properties in

Coxwell Street they are a real feature of the of the street scene in what is

you know the town centre I think just in the conservation there certainly is so

So for me, this is part of the historic fabric of our town,

not just all the benefits that Tree brings.

And listen, I'm now off the applicant

because I'm her local councillor

and I know this has been an issue for a long time,

but we have to balance, don't we,

the inconvenience of a few residents

with the wider benefit that the tree has.

trees bring to our community, to our town.

So yeah, residents absolutely have my sympathy,

but we're here to balance the arguments.

And I think the tree officer has responded

to each of those points.

And I think clearly what needs to happen here

is a bit of a conversation.

Let's get it proved.

Let's make life a bit easier for local residents

while at the same time protecting what I would describe

was a fantastic asset for our town and to two very big landmarks actually.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:18:27

Thank you Councillor Coor. Thank you chair and I thought what the

Councillor Daryl Corps - 2:18:31

officer said about it's been absolutely very very clear and and thank you for

that your report. Mature trees like this you know they're the lungs of

our towns and cities aren't they? You know they add the character and that

that streets wouldn't be that street

without that beautiful tree in the middle of it.

And as Councillor Harrison is probably visible

from all over siren session, a lot of the trees are.

But I think that the tree preservation,

it doesn't ensure that any future decisions don't happen.

It just ensures that they are made properly.

It's like listed building consent is protecting,

this is protecting the living organ,

but also listed building protect the character of buildings.

It doesn't mean that you can't then apply

to change something.

and in future some they may apply to trim that tree or even remove it at least

that would be done with proper consideration in place so it doesn't

stop change just ensures that we don't lose something rational and

irrationally without a proper decision being made by by accidents or

convenience should we say so I fully support the the tree officers

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:19:39

recommendation are you making that as a proposal then would be more be more than

happy to council pressing Tim I'm going to propose it for this case I'll second

Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:19:49

it well done sorry I checked in ahead of you thank you did you want to say

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:19:53

anything else okay so and it does one else feel they want to contribute to the

debate? No. In that case we'll move to the vote to accept the officer's

recommendation to impose a tree preservation order on this tree.

Great. That's carried unanimously so the tree preservation order is allowed. Thank

Thank you very much.

That is the end of the application.

11 Sites Inspection Briefing

Just to note that there is potentially a licencing committee on the 23rd of April.

12 Licensing Sub-Committee

We don't know about that yet.

It doesn't confirm that people, I am just asking Julia if they are, we don't know yet.

So you'll be notified if you're required for the licencing committee on the 23rd of April.

Members for the site inspection briefing if required on the 6th of May are listed there.

Myself, Councillor Watson, Councillor Fowles, Councillor Coleman and Councillor Bridges.

11 Sites Inspection Briefing

At the moment we don't have plans for a site inspection briefing.

And then our next meeting is Wednesday the 13th of May.

So have a nice evening everybody.

Thank you.

Please provide any feedback/comments relating to the live webcast here. Any feedback submitted will be received to the Democratic Services team.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Cotswold District Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

There are currently no votes to display

Planning and Licensing Committee - Wednesday 8 April 2026, 2:00pm - Cotswold District Council Webcasting

Planning and Licensing CommitteeWednesday, 8th April 2026 at 2:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:00:01

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:02:51

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:03:03

Councillor David Fowles - 0:03:18

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:03:25

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:03:39

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:03:43

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:03:48

Councillor Joe Harris - 0:03:52

Councillor Nikki Ind - 0:03:57

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:01

Legal Services - 0:04:07

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:04:13

Officer - 0:04:20

Officer - 0:04:24

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:30

1 Apologies

Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:04:34

2 Substitute Members

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:37

3 Declarations of Interest

Councillor Joe Harris - 0:04:49

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:05:30

Councillor David Fowles - 0:05:35

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:06:29

Legal Services - 0:06:33

Councillor David Fowles - 0:06:38

Legal Services - 0:06:58

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:07:00

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:07:12

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:07:16

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:08:45

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:08:49

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:09:14

Legal Services - 0:09:17

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:09:31

Legal Services - 0:09:35

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:09:47

4 Minutes

Councillor Joe Harris - 0:09:59

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:10:28

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:11:13

5 Chair's Announcements

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:12:47

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:14:31

6 Public questions

7 Member questions

Schedule of Applications

8 25/03700/FUL - The Twelve Bells, 12 Lewis Lane, Cirencester.

Officer - 0:15:30

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:15:50

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:15:51

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:16:12

Officer - 0:16:27

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:18:43

Objector - 0:19:37

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:22:37

Objector - 0:22:43

Applicant/Agent - 0:22:45

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:24:42

Ward Member - 0:25:00

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:29:40

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:29:54

Councillor David Fowles - 0:30:08

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:30:46

Councillor David Fowles - 0:30:52

Legal Services - 0:31:11

Councillor David Fowles - 0:31:32

Planning and Licensing Committee
Wednesday, 8th April 2026 at 2:00pm