Planning and Licensing Committee - Wednesday 13 May 2026, 2:00pm - Cotswold District Council Webcasting

Planning and Licensing Committee
Wednesday, 13th May 2026 at 2:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Dilys Neill
  2. Councillor Dilys Neill
  3. Councillor Julia Judd
  4. Councillor Michael Vann
  5. Councillor David Fowles
  6. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  7. Councillor Paul Evans
  8. Councillor Nikki Ind
  9. Councillor Nick Bridges
  10. Councillor Juliet Layton
  11. Councillor Dilys Neill
  12. Legal Services
  13. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  14. Officer
  15. Councillor Dilys Neill
Share this agenda point
  1. Julia Gibson, Officer
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Dilys Neill
Share this agenda point
  1. Legal Services
  2. Councillor Dilys Neill
  3. Councillor Nikki Ind
  4. Councillor Dilys Neill
  5. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  6. Councillor Dilys Neill
  7. Councillor Dilys Neill
  8. Councillor Juliet Layton
  9. Councillor Dilys Neill
  10. Councillor David Fowles
  11. Councillor Dilys Neill
  12. Councillor David Fowles
  13. Councillor Dilys Neill
  14. Councillor David Fowles
  15. Councillor Dilys Neill
  16. Councillor David Fowles
  17. Councillor Dilys Neill
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Dilys Neill
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Julia Judd
  2. Councillor Dilys Neill
Share this agenda point
  1. 04. To approve the minutes of the Committee held on 8 April 2026
    Status: In progress
  2. 04. To approve the minutes of the Committee held on 8 April 2026
    Status: Ended
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor David Fowles
  2. Councillor Dilys Neill
  3. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  4. Councillor Dilys Neill
  5. Councillor Dilys Neill
  6. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  7. Councillor Dilys Neill
  8. Councillor Juliet Layton
  9. Councillor Dilys Neill
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Officer
  2. Councillor Dilys Neill
  3. Town/Parish Council
  4. Councillor Dilys Neill
  5. Objector
  6. Councillor Dilys Neill
  7. Objector
  8. Applicant/Agent
  9. Councillor Dilys Neill
  10. Councillor Dilys Neill
  11. Ward Member
  12. Councillor Dilys Neill
  13. Councillor Juliet Layton
  14. Councillor Dilys Neill
  15. Councillor Juliet Layton
  16. Officer
  17. Councillor Juliet Layton
  18. Officer
  19. Councillor Juliet Layton
  20. Officer
  21. Councillor Juliet Layton
  22. Officer
  23. Councillor Juliet Layton
  24. Officer
  25. Councillor Dilys Neill
  26. Councillor Julia Judd
  27. Officer
  28. Councillor Julia Judd
  29. Officer
  30. Councillor Dilys Neill
  31. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  32. Officer
  33. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  34. Officer
  35. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  36. Officer
  37. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  38. Councillor David Fowles
  39. Officer
  40. Councillor Dilys Neill
  41. Councillor Nikki Ind
  42. Officer
  43. Councillor Nikki Ind
  44. Officer
  45. Councillor Dilys Neill
  46. Councillor Nick Bridges
  47. Officer
  48. Councillor Dilys Neill
  49. Councillor Paul Evans
  50. Councillor Dilys Neill
  51. Councillor Paul Evans
  52. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  53. Councillor Dilys Neill
  54. Councillor Paul Evans
  55. Officer
  56. Councillor Paul Evans
  57. Councillor Dilys Neill
  58. Councillor Juliet Layton
  59. Officer
  60. Councillor Juliet Layton
  61. Councillor Dilys Neill
  62. Councillor Julia Judd
  63. Officer
  64. Councillor Julia Judd
  65. Councillor Dilys Neill
  66. Councillor Dilys Neill
  67. Councillor Dilys Neill
  68. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  69. Councillor Juliet Layton
  70. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  71. Councillor Juliet Layton
  72. Councillor Dilys Neill
  73. 08. 25/03351/OUT - Land North of Tops Nursery, Mickleton (PERMIT)
    Status: In progress
  74. 08. 25/03351/OUT - Land North of Tops Nursery, Mickleton (PERMIT)
    Status: Held
  75. Officer
  76. Officer
  77. 08. 25/03351/OUT - Land North of Tops Nursery, Mickleton (PERMIT)
    Status: In progress
  78. 08. 25/03351/OUT - Land North of Tops Nursery, Mickleton (PERMIT)
    Status: Ended
  79. Councillor Dilys Neill
  80. Councillor Dilys Neill
  81. Councillor Dilys Neill
Share this agenda point
  1. Officer
  2. Councillor Dilys Neill
  3. Supporter
  4. Councillor Dilys Neill
  5. Applicant/Agent
  6. Councillor Dilys Neill
  7. Councillor Juliet Layton
  8. Officer
  9. Councillor Juliet Layton
  10. Officer
  11. Councillor Dilys Neill
  12. Officer
  13. Councillor Dilys Neill
  14. Councillor Nick Bridges
  15. Councillor Dilys Neill
  16. Councillor David Fowles
  17. Officer
  18. Councillor Dilys Neill
  19. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  20. Officer
  21. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  22. Councillor Dilys Neill
  23. Officer
  24. Councillor Dilys Neill
  25. Officer
  26. Councillor Dilys Neill
  27. Officer
  28. Councillor Dilys Neill
  29. Councillor Juliet Layton
  30. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  31. Councillor Dilys Neill
  32. Councillor David Fowles
  33. Officer
  34. Councillor Dilys Neill
  35. Councillor Julia Judd
  36. Councillor Dilys Neill
  37. Councillor David Fowles
  38. Councillor Dilys Neill
  39. Councillor Paul Evans
  40. Councillor Dilys Neill
  41. Councillor Paul Evans
  42. Councillor Dilys Neill
  43. Councillor Juliet Layton
  44. Legal Services
  45. Councillor Dilys Neill
  46. 09. 25/01623/FUL - Spratsgate Lane, Siddington (PERMIT)
    Status: In progress
  47. 09. 25/01623/FUL - Spratsgate Lane, Siddington (PERMIT)
    Status: Ended
Share this agenda point
  1. Officer
  2. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  3. Officer
  4. Councillor Dilys Neill
  5. Councillor David Fowles
  6. Councillor Dilys Neill
  7. Councillor David Fowles
  8. Councillor Dilys Neill
  9. Town/Parish Council
  10. Councillor Dilys Neill
  11. Town/Parish Council
  12. Councillor Dilys Neill
  13. Legal Services
  14. Councillor Dilys Neill
  15. Public Speaker
  16. Councillor Dilys Neill
  17. Councillor Dilys Neill
  18. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  19. Councillor Dilys Neill
  20. Councillor Julia Judd
  21. Councillor Dilys Neill
  22. Councillor Michael Vann
  23. Councillor Dilys Neill
  24. Councillor Nikki Ind
  25. Councillor Dilys Neill
  26. Councillor Julia Judd
  27. Councillor Dilys Neill
  28. Councillor Nick Bridges
  29. Councillor Dilys Neill
  30. Councillor Nikki Ind
  31. Councillor Dilys Neill
  32. Councillor Juliet Layton
  33. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  34. Councillor Juliet Layton
  35. Councillor Dilys Neill
  36. Councillor Paul Evans
  37. Councillor Dilys Neill
  38. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  39. Officer
  40. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  41. Officer
  42. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  43. Officer
  44. Councillor Dilys Neill
  45. Councillor Paul Evans
  46. Officer
  47. Councillor Dilys Neill
  48. Councillor Paul Evans
  49. Councillor Dilys Neill
  50. Councillor Dilys Neill
  51. Officer
  52. Officer
  53. Councillor Dilys Neill
  54. Councillor Dilys Neill
  55. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  56. Officer
  57. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  58. Councillor Dilys Neill
  59. Councillor Julia Judd
  60. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  61. Councillor Dilys Neill
  62. Councillor Paul Evans
  63. Councillor Dilys Neill
  64. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  65. Councillor Dilys Neill
  66. Councillor Juliet Layton
  67. Officer
  68. Officer
  69. Councillor Juliet Layton
  70. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  71. Councillor Dilys Neill
  72. Councillor Nikki Ind
  73. Councillor Dilys Neill
  74. Councillor Paul Evans
  75. Councillor Dilys Neill
  76. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  77. Councillor Dilys Neill
  78. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  79. Councillor Dilys Neill
  80. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  81. Councillor Paul Evans
  82. Councillor Dilys Neill
  83. Councillor Dilys Neill
  84. Councillor Michael Vann
  85. Councillor Dilys Neill
  86. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  87. Councillor Dilys Neill
  88. Councillor Paul Evans
  89. Councillor Dilys Neill
  90. Councillor Juliet Layton
  91. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  92. Councillor Dilys Neill
  93. Councillor Michael Vann
  94. Councillor Dilys Neill
  95. Councillor Paul Evans
  96. Councillor Paul Evans
  97. Officer
  98. Councillor Dilys Neill
  99. Councillor Paul Evans
  100. Councillor Dilys Neill
  101. Councillor Dilys Neill
  102. Councillor Paul Evans
  103. Councillor Dilys Neill
  104. Councillor Paul Evans
  105. Councillor Dilys Neill
  106. 10. 25/02960/FUL - Shoecroft Barn, Ablington (PERMIT)
    Status: In progress
  107. Councillor Dilys Neill
  108. Councillor Dilys Neill
  109. 10. 25/02960/FUL - Shoecroft Barn, Ablington (PERMIT)
    Status: Ended
  110. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  111. Councillor Dilys Neill
  112. Councillor Dilys Neill
  113. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  114. Councillor Dilys Neill
  115. Councillor Julia Judd
  116. Councillor Dilys Neill
  117. Councillor Julia Judd
  118. Councillor Dilys Neill
  119. Councillor Julia Judd
  120. Councillor Dilys Neill
  121. Councillor Julia Judd
  122. Councillor Dilys Neill
  123. Councillor Julia Judd
  124. Councillor Dilys Neill
  125. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  126. Councillor Dilys Neill
  127. Councillor Dilys Neill
  128. Councillor Paul Evans
  129. Councillor Dilys Neill
  130. Councillor Paul Evans
  131. Councillor Dilys Neill
  132. 10. 25/02960/FUL - Shoecroft Barn, Ablington (DEFER)
    Status: In progress
  133. Councillor Dilys Neill
  134. 10. 25/02960/FUL - Shoecroft Barn, Ablington (DEFER)
    Status: Ended
  135. Officer
  136. Councillor Dilys Neill
  137. Councillor Dilys Neill
  138. Objector
  139. Councillor Dilys Neill
  140. Objector
  141. Councillor Dilys Neill
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Dilys Neill
  2. Councillor Juliet Layton
  3. Officer
  4. Councillor Juliet Layton
  5. Officer
  6. Councillor Juliet Layton
  7. Councillor Nikki Ind
  8. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  9. Officer
  10. Councillor Juliet Layton
  11. Legal Services
  12. Councillor Juliet Layton
  13. Councillor Dilys Neill
  14. Councillor Dilys Neill
  15. Officer
  16. Councillor Dilys Neill
  17. Officer
  18. Councillor Dilys Neill
  19. Councillor Julia Judd
  20. Councillor Nick Bridges
  21. Councillor Nick Bridges
  22. Councillor Dilys Neill
  23. 11. 25/02961/LBC - Shoecroft Barn, Ablington (DEFER)
    Status: In progress
  24. Councillor Dilys Neill
  25. 11. 25/02961/LBC - Shoecroft Barn, Ablington (DEFER)
    Status: Ended
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Dilys Neill
  2. Councillor Dilys Neill
  3. Officer
  4. Councillor Dilys Neill
  5. Applicant/Agent
  6. Councillor Dilys Neill
  7. Councillor Dilys Neill
  8. Councillor Julia Judd
  9. Officer
  10. Councillor Julia Judd
  11. Councillor Dilys Neill
  12. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  13. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  14. Councillor Dilys Neill
  15. Officer
  16. Officer
  17. Councillor David Fowles
  18. Councillor Dilys Neill
  19. Councillor Nikki Ind
  20. Officer
  21. Councillor Dilys Neill
  22. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  23. Councillor Dilys Neill
  24. Councillor David Fowles
  25. Councillor Dilys Neill
  26. Councillor David Fowles
  27. Councillor Julia Judd
  28. Councillor Dilys Neill
  29. Councillor Dilys Neill
  30. 11. 25/02961/LBC - Shoecroft Barn, Ablington (DEFER)
    Status: In progress
  31. Councillor Dilys Neill
  32. 12. 25/03713/FUL - Hill Farm, Oddington (PERMIT)
    Status: Ended
  33. Councillor David Fowles
  34. Councillor Dilys Neill
  35. Councillor David Fowles
  36. Councillor Dilys Neill
  37. Councillor David Fowles
  38. Councillor Dilys Neill
  39. Councillor David Fowles
Share this agenda point
  1. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  2. Councillor Dilys Neill
  3. Objector
  4. Councillor Dilys Neill
  5. Applicant/Agent
  6. Councillor Dilys Neill
  7. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  8. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  9. Councillor Dilys Neill
  10. Councillor Nikki Ind
  11. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  12. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  13. Councillor Dilys Neill
  14. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  15. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  16. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  17. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  18. Councillor Dilys Neill
  19. Councillor Michael Vann
  20. Councillor Dilys Neill
  21. Councillor David Fowles
  22. Councillor Dilys Neill
  23. Councillor David Fowles
  24. Councillor Dilys Neill
  25. Councillor Nick Bridges
  26. Councillor Dilys Neill
  27. Councillor Julia Judd
  28. Councillor Dilys Neill
  29. Councillor Julia Judd
  30. Councillor Dilys Neill
  31. Councillor Dilys Neill
  32. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  33. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  34. Councillor Dilys Neill
  35. 13. 24/01143/OUT - Royal Agricultural University (PERMIT)
    Status: In progress
  36. 13. 24/01143/OUT - Royal Agricultural University (PERMIT)
    Status: Ended
Share this agenda point
  1. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  2. Councillor Dilys Neill
  3. Councillor David Fowles
  4. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  5. Councillor Dilys Neill
  6. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  7. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  8. Councillor Dilys Neill
  9. Councillor Nikki Ind
  10. Councillor Dilys Neill
  11. Legal Services
  12. Councillor Dilys Neill
  13. 14. To agree and delegate to Head of Planning the response to MHCLG consultation
    Status: In progress
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:00:00
We're on the live webcast now, is that right? Good.
Good afternoon and welcome to everybody.
I'm Delis Neal, I'm currently the chair of planning at Cotswolds District Council.
Welcome to this meeting of our planning committee.
It's very wonderful to see so many members of the public here.
And I'd also like to welcome our regular viewers
and anyone else who's watching the webcast at home.
We always welcome your comments.
Can I just ask everyone to switch off their phones, if you've not done that already?
I'll put them on silent.
We use an electronic voting system and people at home and also you in the audience will
be able to see on the screens the way people have voted.
If for any reason that method fails, we'll return to the old -fashioned method of raising
our hands.
Members of the public, you must not talk to members of the committee, even if you know
them very well. Please don't interrupt proceedings. It's very tempting, I know, sometimes to raise
a chair or a boo or a comment. But please, if you could keep quiet during the proceedings,
that would be really good. So some of you will be here as public speakers, and you'll
be called forward at the appropriate time after the officer has presented each case.
So each public speaker will have three minutes to speak,
and we're pretty strict about that.
We will let you finish a sentence, but so please sort
of put your most important points up front if you can
do that.
We'll let you finish a sentence, but we won't let you go on for,
you know, several minutes longer.
I just wanted to clarify when we come to the
bibury application. In the past there's two applications for this, a full
application and a listed building application, listed building consent and
we have in the past allowed speakers to run their two sets of three minutes,
one for the full and one for the listed building together, but this time we're
going to, it seems more appropriate that we should take them separately, so if
you've come to speak about that application you'll get three minutes to
to speak on the full application and the three minutes
on the list of building consent.
Councillor Fowles will have five minutes
on the full application.
And then after that, when we come to the list
of building consents, which we vote on separately,
he'll get another five minutes to speak there.
I think that's everything I have to tell you at the moment,
although I have a further announcement shortly.
So now I'm going to introduce,
ask the members to introduce themselves.
As I said, my name is Delis Neil.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:02:49
I'm the district councillor for Stowe and the Wold and my colleagues will introduce themselves.
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:02:53
I'm vice chair today. I'm councillor Julia Judd and my ward is Ermine Ward.
Councillor Michael Vann - 0:03:00
Michael Van Fairford North
Councillor David Fowles - 0:03:04
I'm councillor David Fowles for the Colne Valley Ward which includes Bybury and if I could
Chairman, I'd just like to make reference to the hat I'm wearing.
Yesterday I was at an AGM of a parish council and a lady came up to me and said,
it's very rude young man, you're wearing a hat in a meeting.
Haven't you learned not to do that?
I said, well, I'm afraid to say that I fell down some stairs a month ago
and had 26 staples in my head and I thought that you might prefer to see the hat than the staples.
So I hope you'll bear with me. Okay, thank you.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:03:39
Good afternoon, I am Councillor Patrick Coleman representing the Stratton Ward in the Sykes
Councillor Paul Evans - 0:03:52
sister. Good afternoon, I am Paul Evans representing the Beaches Ward and substituting for Councillor
Councillor Nikki Ind - 0:03:58
Jo Harris today. Good afternoon, I am Councillor Nicky and I am an independent member at Tep
Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:04:08
Eastern rural. And I'm Councillor Nick Bridges and the Watermore Ward is where you are.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:04:17
And I'm Juliet Leighton from South Cerny Village and I think I'm subbing for Ray Bransington.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:25
We shall find that out in just a minute.
Now, can officers introduce themselves?
Legal Services - 0:04:35
Good afternoon, I am Mari Barnes, legal advisor to this committee.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:04:42
I am Harrison Burley, head of planning services for the Council.
Officer - 0:04:47
I am Martin Perks, principal planning officer.

1 Apologies

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:51
Thank you very much. Now, can you tell me, Julia, if there are any apologies and substitutions?
Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:05:00
We have quite a few apologies today. Apologies from Councillor Jo Harris, Ian Watson, Ray

2 Substitute Members

Brasington and Darlene Court. We do have substitutes. Councillor Julia Layton is substituted for
Ray Brasington and Councillor Paul Evans is substituting for Councillor Harris. As you
said, Councillor Julia Judd is substituting as Vice Chair today. Thank you very much
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:05:21
Councillor Judd for stepping into the breach. Now, Mari, would you like to brief us

3 Declarations of Interest

Legal Services - 0:05:33
before we come to declarations of interests? Thank you, Chair. Just a
reminder in respect of declarations of interest and in particular one agenda
item, members are reminded of their duty to declare any interests and to consider
whether they can participate in an item with an open mind, having regard both to
actual conflicts and the perception of bias. In relation to the first
application on the agenda, Land North of Topps Nursery, Meckleton, members are
advised that one of the landowners is Mr. Lyndon Stowe, a former long -standing
be familiar with Mr Stowe. Members are therefore asked to reflect on whether
any connexion they may have with Mr Stowe or any other landowner or
applicant or agent could reasonably be perceived by a fair -minded and informed
observer as giving raise to bias. Any relevant interests should be declared
now and members should consider whether it is appropriate for them to take part
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:06:44
in the consideration of this or any items. Thank you. Thank you very much and
with that clarification can I now ask if any members have got a declaration of
Councillor Nikki Ind - 0:06:55
interest they would like to make? Councillor Inge. Not really declaration of
interest but for transparency agenda item 8 whilst I don't know Councillor Stowe, I
have met with the developer Newland Homes in Tethbury because they have a
development in my ward but I've got no had no discussion about this particular
application and therefore I'm content that I would have no predetermination
and in item 13 with the RAU as chair of this council I did attend some of the
an initial planning meeting where they outlined their thoughts and what might
be happening but again that was an information meeting and I have complete
you know no pre -determination or some I'm happy to contend I'm content if
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:07:40
you're content thank you very much Councillor Colman
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:07:46
thank you madam chair yes also with regards in Newland homes one of their
officers sufficiently senior to have been involved in applications is a
constituent of mine in Stratton I don't meet with him socially I don't think I
I've spoken with him for five or six years so I don't consider that I need to
recuse myself from the decision -making with regard to Newland Homes application.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:08:15
Thank you very much anybody else like to make a declaration?
Councillor Fowles.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:08:21
Councillor Layton first.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:08:23
Yes can you perhaps your vice -chair could keep an eye out because their hands are round and we're not looking.
Really I wasn't going to actually say anything because I don't think I've got
any interest but as a transparency yes I was been on this council with Lyndon
Stowe for several you know quite a number of years before he left but I
have no interest in this development or I probably haven't seen him since I
don't think and as far as Newland Homes are concerned I too have visited their
properties that they've shown us in the course of being part of planning with
this council but again with nothing to do with this development. Thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:09:10
Councillor David Fowles - 0:09:12
Thank you councillor Fowles. Thank you chairman. Following on from
councillor Layton in relation to agenda item 8 planning application for the
land north of tops nursery in Mickleton. Unlike a councillor Layton who's known
Councillor Lindenstowe for a number of years. I too have known him for a number of years
and I have been advised by the Monitoring Officer that I need to declare a personal
interest in this item. Mr Lindenstowe is a long -standing personal friend of mine of some
23 years, I'm staggering to think that, and in order to avoid any perception of bias I
will withdraw from the meeting and take no part in the discussion or decision on this
Those were the words I was instructed to read out, so I hope that I make sure that that's
with Democratic Services.
And I also have to declare another interest, if I may, Chairman, which is in relation to
gender items 10 and 11.
So that's the Shugroff Barn application in my ward, both for full planning and for listed
building consent.
I am going to be speaking as the ward member, but given the strength of feeling in this
community about the trout farm generally and about this application specifically, and I
have been involved in lots of parish council meetings and discussions with residents, I
have been instructed that I can speak as the ward member, but I have to confess that I
cannot take part in the debate as a member of this committee because I do not come to
this application with an open mind unlike all my colleagues.
I've already made my mind up about that application,
so I will leave for those two items as well.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:11:05
Councillor David Fowles - 0:11:06
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:11:07
Could I just ask a question about them, please?
Councillor David Fowles - 0:11:08
In the normal course of business,
we'll discuss the full application,
and I won't be here,
but I will have spoken as the board member.
I then would like to speak on the second application,
that you'll all know the results and I won't.
So what's the advice?
Should I make some comments about the list
of building consent separately at the beginning
and then leave for the duration of both applications,
which is what I'd prefer to do,
or do you want me to come back in
and you'll all know and I won't?
So my preference would be to speak about both
at the beginning and then leave for both applications,
but you may have a different view.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:11:49
We discussed beforehand that it would be more appropriate to take the two separately.
We can of course tell you the results of the vote before you come back.
I think that would be the correct thing to do.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:12:09
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:12:17
We are happy for you to speak to both of them then, but we will ask the public speakers
to speak individually on the full and then the list of building.
How will that work? The public speakers and I will speak about the full application.
The public speakers will get three minutes for the full, then when your turn comes you
will get ten minutes to speak on both applications then you will leave the
room and then when we come to the listed building consent the public speakers may
then come forward again and speak for three minutes. I won't be here at that point.
You'll be outside drinking tea. Okay because obviously the two are very closely
related. Thank You chairman that's a great advice.
Councillor Comer did you have something you wanted? He said could I make it ten
minutes because he's being facetious. Thanks Jan. I'm looking forward to it.

4 Minutes

Okay thank you. Oh yes the minutes sorry yes sorry. So the next thing is have
any officers got any declarations of interest? Sorry

3 Declarations of Interest

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:13:24
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:13:28
Councillor Judd. I forgot. How could I forget you? I know Councillor Stowe but I am
very comfortable that I'm approaching this committee meeting with an open
mind. I know the applicant for the Shucroft barn but I haven't seen him for
years and years and years and I also know the Town and Parish Council
spokesman for Bybury Parish Council but again I am approaching all three
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:14:05
applications with an open mind I have no qualms about it at all thank you. Thank

4 Minutes

you Julia Judge, you're obviously a very well -known
person in this part of the world. Good. So now we move on to the minutes. Does
anyone have any comments on the minutes of the last meeting in April? If no one
has any amendments would anyone like to propose that we accept? Thank You
Councillor Fells. Does anyone want to second? Councillor Coleman. In that case
We will go to the vote on whether these minutes are appropriate.
Please remember that if you went to the meeting you should abstain.
Thanks.
Councillor Evans I think you've pressed the wrong button, that's better.
Who are we missing?
Thank you very much.
Are you pressed?
Councillor Bridges, have you voted?
Councillor Layton, could you kindly vote to abstain?
Thank you very much.
Well done.
Great.
We will count you as abstaining. Thank you very much. The minutes have passed. As a correct
record of our previous meeting, I will have to sign this at some stage. Thank you. Councillor
Fance, now is the appropriate moment for you to leave.
If you want to.
Isn't he going to talk?
No, the first one isn't his.
Oh, yes.
Oh, sorry.
Yes.
Yes, I'm desperate to get rid of you.
Desperate to go.
No, that's fine.

5 Chair's Announcements

So we'll move on to chairs' announcements.
First, I just wanted to explain to the assembled company, most of our planning applications
dealt with by our extremely competent officers
who've done the appropriate training in planning
and they deal with most applications
making a decision to permit or to refuse.
But some are brought to this planning committee.
Our constitutional guidelines require
that we bring major applications to this committee
and on this particular date,
we've got three of the applications that we're bringing
are here because they're major applications.
The other applications are because the ward member
has requested that they be brought to be discussed
by this committee, and so they're brought
at the request of the ward member.
I hope that's clear.
The decisions are made on, we try to make our decisions
on sound planning grounds,
and the agenda packs that we have in front of us
gives the pros and cons which the officers
are directing us based on planning law.
And so that's what our decisions are made on.
It's not on personal opinion, it's on planning law.
I hope that's comprehensive and understandable.
Okay, so.
So...
Councillor Fowles wants to ask a question.
Councillor Fowles.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:17:52
Sorry Chairman, under your announcements you have previously mentioned the issue of members not being present because they've touched on other commitments and so on.
And the issue of quorum that we've got, at the moment we've got two substitutes and two members who are missing but haven't got substitutes.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:18:11
Could you possibly let members of the public appreciate what that means?
So we normally have, our planning committee is up to 11 people. We have
normally have 11 members who can attend the planning committee. Our quorum
however is only three but we do our level best to make sure that we have
more, you know, more than the quorum and today we've got two, four, six, nine of us so
we're perhaps two down on the 11 but that's still a substantial number and
We're certainly quarantined for this meeting to go ahead.
Thank you.
So, yes, also, after the, we've considered the applications,
Harrison Bowley, our head of planning,
is going to brief us on recent government consultation
on planning fees.
And just a reminder that there's all member training
planning, which I hope that all members of the Council will be able to attend. That is
on June 3rd. Will it be available on Teams? Either here or on Teams.
So, sorry, did you say something?
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:19:25
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:19:27
I just wanted to ask, Chair, thank you, which area or part of planning will it be about in training?
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:19:34
My understanding it would be the general planning and training that is given to all members when they start.
And so even a long -standing member such as yourself, Councillor Coleman, might like to come along and
you may be able to contribute some words of wisdom to help us.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:19:51
Thank you so much. Now I should definitely require that training due to my increasing age.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:19:58
Councillor Layton, thank you.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:19:59
Sorry to intrude and interrupt, but I would absolutely urge everybody,
Planning Committee and all members, if they can come,
and be present for it. It's really important. It's better to be here than online. If you
can't make it, then online is okay. But there are so many government changes that I really
think it's very important that we get our updates. Thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:20:28
Thank you very much. We'll send at least one reminder round to everybody and try and encourage
as many people as possible to attend, perhaps with the inducements of biscuits.
Planning biscuits.

6 Public questions

Planning biscuits, that's it. Okay. So moving on, are there any public questions that we've been notified of?

7 Member questions

And are there any member questions that we've been notified of?

Schedule of Applications

Okay, so thank you. So now we're moving on to the schedule of applications at which point, Councillor Falski, we say au revoir.
Au revoir.

8 25/03351/OUT - Land North of Tops Nursery, Mickleton

Now, our first application is for land north of Topps Nursery,
Meckleton, our Outline Planning application for the demolition
of existing buildings and for up to 95 dwellings,
associated access and infrastructure,
all other matters reserved at land north of Topps Nursery,
Broadway Road, Meckleton.
And the case officer is Martin Pax, and the ward members
a Councillor Bloomfield and Councillor Stowe and so can I ask Mr. Pecks to give
Officer - 0:21:37
us an update. Yes thank you chair I just refer members to the additional pages
that you received yesterday just to clarify on 20th of November last year
Councillor Stowe, Councillor Tom Stowe did declare an interest obviously as we've
mentioned earlier his father owns part of the application site so he declared an
interest quite early in the application process. Also on Friday we received a contribution
request from Gloucester County Council towards school transports. They are listed in that
schedule. They've been forwarded to the applicant. The applicant hasn't come back saying no to
them. So if it is permitted today or recommendation to permit today, we'd recommend the recommendation
is updated to include those financial contributions in the section 106. The other thing I mentioned
in the report was ongoing discussions about biodiversity
and biodiversity net gain.
About an hour ago I did receive an updated bat survey report
and biodiversity net gain information.
So that will be looked at.
We think these are all issues that can be resolved.
They're just normal matters that we'd normally go
through during the course of the application.
So it's just a clarification at the moment from the applicant
in terms of how they were going to address biodiversity net gain
and whether that needs to go into a Section 106 agreement
or by condition in terms of habitat management plan.
So I think those are all resolvable.
So as it stands at the moment, yes,
the recommendation is as it stands,
but subject to those additional contribution requests.
And also to add any conditions relating to biodiversity
that may result from the final response
from the biodiversity officer.
So if you're happy with that,
I'll move on to the presentation.
For those who aren't familiar with Meckleton, the application site is shown in the yellow
dot, adjacent to the south -western part of the village.
It's partly occupied by housing, partly by one house, partly by a garden centre, retail
development and also to the north by a field.
The application outlined in red again shows that the glass houses in the centre of the
site would be removed. The housing would extend beyond the woodland to the north into the
field and also around the garden centre and the green areas of land to its sides. As it's
an outline application, this is just an indicative plan to show potentially where housing could
go within the site, it's not fixed,
and it's something that we'll be open to discussion
should outline permission be granted in this instance.
I think one of the things that's come out
of the application process is we had concerns
about the creation of a public footpath
through the woodland, although it's identified
as a public right -of -way at the moment,
the upgrades necessary to accommodate additional pedestrian
and cycle traffic could have had
impact on trees and wildlife.
So we've agreed with the applicant to introduce a dedicated cycle pedestrian link that would
go round the woodland and avoid the need for people to walk through the woodland other
than purely for recreation purposes.
So that addresses some of the concerns we had there about the connectivity into the
adjacent development to the northeast.
In terms of the site itself, top pictures, views from the main road.
As you can see, it's essentially a mixture of commercial units and some houses.
This would remain, so it's not largely going to look any different from the road as you
see it at the moment.
The houses would be in the background.
The bottom photograph just shows the current uses on the site.
As you can see, there's a barber's store, sweet shop, various other uses.
So rather than just a dedicated garden centre, it does now operate a number of different
commercial outlets. The top photo again shows the eastern strip of land with the garden
centre beyond the conifer trees. The bungalow in the distance would be removed and that's
the one that currently includes the bat roost. The access would also be through this entrance,
this part of the site. The bottom photograph shows the land between this bit of land and
the garden centre itself which shows a line of houses. So you already have a line of houses
extending to the northeast from the garden centre along the road. The site itself is
in the public right of way which extends through the garden centre, essentially goes through
a commercial area with glass houses so these would be removed as part of the scheme. And
this is the existing woodland path that I talked about. The bottom right photograph
shows a stretch of land about 20 metres which extends from the eastern edge of the application
site to existing pavements within the development to the northeast. This is in the applicant's
control and it does form part of a dedicated public right of way. This would need to be
upgraded and formalised with hard surface but we could have one for pedestrians and
one for the cycle path so again that's something that could be achieved and provide decent
connectivity for future residents to the existing highway network.
The field to the north, this is the area that gave us some concern when we first looked
at the application in terms of the housing encroaching into the land to the north.
This is taken from the landscape, sorry, the applicant's landscape visual impact assessment.
The application site is beyond the post and wire fencing and just in front of those trees.
This is taken from the public right of way.
Obviously this was taken in winter.
I took some pictures in July 2024, so it is quite different in the summer compared to
the winter months.
And as it can be seen, there's limited visibility with existing housing in the settlement.
But again, we also now have to take into account that we have other applications coming forward
for development in the village.
So the application site is in red, the site outlined in blue to the west is currently
an application for 170 houses that's with us and the lime green site is one for 60 which
is also with us.
The land further to the north field has also been put forward to local plans as potential
housing sites as well.
So as can be seen there's quite a significant amount of development coming forward for the
village at the current time.
And so we have to bear that in mind going forward,
especially since the preferred options consultation
paper for the local plan has indicated
that Mickleton can potentially accommodate around 400
or more houses going forward.
So I think as it stands at the moment,
looking at this application as it stands,
we think it significantly addresses our housing land
supply shortfall, provides 38 affordable homes, which
is also a significant benefit.
as accessibility pedestrians and cyclists to village services and facilities and
notwithstanding the size of development relative to the settlement as a whole we
think the benefits outweigh those impacts in this particular instance so
hopefully that explains matters thank you
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:29:06
thank you very much now can I ask the public speakers to come forward so for
Town and Parish Council we've got Chris Cottam, an objector Andy Crump and the
applicant or Catherine Shepherd. So I'll ask you to speak in the order in which
you've been called forward starting with Mr. Cottam. Just to remind you that you
have three minutes to speak I'll ask my colleague Councillor Judd to keep time
and we'll notify you when you've come to the end and we'll, as I said, let you finish a statement,
but not to go on and on. Okay, thank you very much. Whenever you're ready.
Town/Parish Council - 0:29:54
Okay, well thank you, Chair. First, I'd like to thank Martin for a very detailed report and also
thank Newland Homes for their sincere attempts to engage with the village, which is very much
In the MPPF, much is made of decisions needing to be based on the balance between benefit
and harm. I believe it's the job of the parish council to express these things as they relate
to our parishioners. So how might the people of Mickleton benefit from further housing
development? Will there be much needed additional employment? Will parishioners have access
to new or expanded local provision for health care, education, shopping and leisure? Will
Will there be a reduction in currently excessive traffic volumes on congested and dangerous
roads?
The answer to all these current issues is no.
In fact, further development without appropriate investment in infrastructure will inevitably
make things worse.
This is not theory, it is the lived experience of the last ten years of overdevelopment with
an actual reduction in available infrastructure.
So who does benefit?
The people of Mickleton understand that we must attract young people for the future good of the village
and to provide for existing local families needing to expand or contract their space requirements.
The provision of appropriate affordable housing is to be welcomed.
Appropriate does not include four and five bedroom market housing to be purchased by retirees, second -homers and for use as Airbnbs.
Proliferation of such properties undermines the social cohesion of the village.
Apart from this modest number of affordable homes, the only real beneficiaries are the land owners,
the developers and Cotswold District Council through being able to meet an imposed unrealistic housing target.
There are additional harms beyond simply failing to address the current issues.
Martin's report acknowledges there has already been excessive development in Mickleton.
Should all the current applications be approved, this would expand the village by more than
50%.
This would inevitably have a profoundly negative impact on the character of the village.
Mickleton straddles the boundary of the national landscape, but is rightly recognised as the
northern gateway to the Cotswolds.
To believe that development in close proximity to the border does not damage the image of
of the national landscape is ludicrous. Does anyone really want this gateway to become
an urban sprawl? In conclusion, no significant further development
should take place in Meikleton until an effective plan for infrastructure is developed and committed.
Any resulting SIL funds and S106 monies from any further development must be invested directly
in Meckleton for the benefit of Meckleton. The village will no longer accept all the
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:33:01
pain from development with little of the potential gain. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Perfect timing. Now can I ask, could you switch yours off and then
Mr Crump switch your side on? That would be great. And you have three minutes as well,
Objector - 0:33:17
Mr Crump. Thank you.
My name is Andy Crump and I am chair of Mickelton against inappropriate development made on behalf of made
I wish to add some concerns arising from certain observations Martin perks has made in his presence case officers report in
Powergraf 2020 of his report. Mr
Perks remarks the no infrastructure improvements that arise in the present proposal and that his ad hoc nature weighs against it
He then proceeds to make seemingly unrelated references to the emerging local plan before concluding Powergraf
1023 by stating the residential growth of the village has not been accompanied by any
corresponding growth in employment, health or social infrastructure. He also highlights
the reduced village infrastructure in paragraph 1026 of his report. Despite these negative
red flags, however, Mr Perks offers nothing in terms of how such infrastructure deficiencies
could be addressed. In paragraph 1028 of his report, Mr Perks states that he has considered
there would be a reasonable level of transport modes on offer for future residents of the development
in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 110 of the MPPPF. This assertion is however
inconsistent with what is stated in paragraph 1019 of his report of September 2025 in relation
to the Brookworth Homes development proposal under reference 2501621 OUT where he said that officers
has had significant concerns about the ability of that development to provide realistic alternatives
to the use of the private motorcar to undertake most day -to -day activities.
I suggest that nothing has changed since then to justify his now contrary view.
There are still only eight daily bus services from Meikleton to Camden, Moreton and Stratford,
reducing to six on Sundays.
These services are not timed to meet the requirements of working commuters, of which Meikleton is
as a major exporter or people seeking leisure activities
and are unsuitable for those doing
regular heavy grocery shopping.
In relation to educational infrastructure,
commuting would also be necessary
for incoming primary school children,
which further undermines Mickelson's status
as a principal settlement.
Under paragraph 1023 of his previous report
from September, 2025, Mr. Perk cited various factors
that contributed towards making
the Brookworth Homes Development proposal sustainable.
These included the size of that proposal, combined with previous developments since 2011,
the limited services on offering settlements, and the future reliance on private car use for most day -to -day activities.
He said that these factors would result in a disproportionate increase in the size of the settlements
that would fail to respond in a sympathetic way to its location and prevailing character.
On behalf of MADE, I would suggest that the present proposal would have similar adverse consequences for Mickelton and should be refused accordingly.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:36:05
Thank you. Thank you very much and now can I ask Catherine Shepherd to speak.
Objector - 0:36:10
Good afternoon chair and committee members. I'm Catherine Shepherd from
Applicant/Agent - 0:36:17
Newland Homes. Our application was submitted in October last year and since
then we have worked closely with officers to refine the scheme and ensure
it is policy compliant. The scheme will deliver 95 new homes 38 of which will be
affordable housing. The site is approximately five and a half hectares
and is located to the southwest of the village. A large part of the site is
classed as Brownfield and will be redeveloped for housing. The site is
within walking distance to local services and a regular bus service is
also available. Vehicle access will be taken from Broadway Road. Gloucestershire
County highways have confirmed this along with the footpath and cycleway
links are acceptable to the council. Our layout provides good separation
distances to exist in residential dwellings. We will provide ecology and biodiversity enhancements
to the site and retain existing ecology corridors. We will provide hedgehog highways and bat
and bird boxes within our development along with new and enhanced tree and shrub planting.
BNG will be provided partly on -site and partly off -site which is in line with current BNG
legislation. Over a third of the site will be provided as open space. As many of you will be
aware Newland Homes is a local house builder based in Gloucestershire established in 1991.
We are a sustainable developer and in 2021 became the first house builder to sign up
to the United Nations Climate Now Neutral pledge demonstrating our commitment to sustainability
and striving towards a greener future for all. Our first zero carbon homes were completed
in 2022 in the North Somerset village of Tickenham and the lines in Tepary is our first zero
carbon site in the Cotswold district and will be completed towards the end of the year.
To date we have completed more than 300 zero carbon homes and this number will continue
to rise as all of our developments provide zero carbon homes. Our homes generate negative
amounts of CO2 from the prime energy which is the energy required for heating, hot water,
ventilation and lighting. This is due to the use of highly efficient air source heat pumps,
extensive solar PV panels providing renewable energy,
and high levels of insulation,
and importantly, avoid the use of fossil fuels.
We have received reports and purchases
that they can run their home on three pound 67 per week,
and that includes charging an electric car.
We also provide water butts, compost areas and gardens,
integrated eco -bins, along with infrastructure
for car charging points.
We hope that you will support officers' recommendations
to approve our application,
and can see that our scheme has been well thought out in terms of design and with the additional
sustainability provisions for our houses will create a pleasant place to live. We intend to
follow this proposal with a reserve matters application quickly and would anticipate delivery
of new homes during 2027 enabling the provision of much needed homes to the area and contributing
positively to the council's housing land supply shortfall and local housing needs. Thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:39:14
Perfect. Perfect timing. Well done all of you. Thank you very much. Would you like to return to your seats?
Councillor Brumfield, you're going to speak as the ward member I think.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:39:30
You have five minutes as you know. Thanks.
Ward Member - 0:39:40
Good afternoon everyone. I am Councillor Gina Bloomfield, the ward member for Camden and
Vale in which Mickleton sits. Fourth of all, I would like to thank the case officer for
his thorough, clear and detailed report. And to all those residents of Mickleton who responded
to this application, it is so important to have this community involvement. And of course
to the parish council for giving a thoughtful response. I know that Mickleton against inappropriate
development we have just heard their response and they have also was well thought through.
As mentioned by the parish council, Newlands Home have engaged during this planning process
and that's appreciated and they will also be the developer as well as the applicant.
As you will have seen there were many comments, at least 48 in objection and three general
comments. Middleton has grown significantly over recent years without
any infrastructure to provide education, medical, shopping or leisure activities
for its residents. If the potential amount of additional housing is built in
the village, where is the necessary infrastructure going to come from for
the education? The local primary is already full and cannot expand on its
site and for secondary education Chipping Camden School has a waiting
list. If this development goes ahead the village will have increased by 50 % and
since 2011 without any additional infrastructure and indeed loss of the GP's practise and post office
during this time. Cars are the default means of transport as the alternatives are not realistically
possible walking, cycling or taking public transport. The B4632 which was once an A road
is becoming increasingly busy often with lots of HGV traffic which has to meander its way through
what is in effect a rural road and there are real concerns about road safety and
speeds through the village. I've also been aware that Warwickshire
Council is planning yet further huge development three miles from
Mickleton of up to 10 ,000 to 12 ,000 houses which will put further pressure
on the B4632. The lack of amenities identified in a settlement
role and function study in November 2025, Middleton recorded a score of 8 .3 which is 14th out of 16
principal settlements at the present time, let alone before there is additional development.
There are also applications as we've just seen on two neighbouring sites, one for 170 houses and the
other for 60. There are also other sites in the same village for further housing which could bring
the total to 400 or more dwellings. How is this going to be managed with this existing
infrastructure?
The supply of mains water to these properties is a concern and Thames Water has identified
the inability to accommodate the needs of this development, let alone the two additional
ones. These are material considerations under NPPF Para 20 and 188.
Another serious cause for concern is that there are very few employment opportunities
in Meckleton, which means people moving into this housing will have to travel distances
to work.
In Section 7 .40, the goalposts have clearly been moved by the current government, which
has upset the previous CDC's Local Plan 2011 -2031, which suggested no further housing allocations
would be made in Meckleton.
7 .43, the key question is whether the benefits outweigh the harm.
Clearly a benefit is to help CDC achieve its new housing target. The harm is
increasing a settlement without providing additional educational,
medical, retail facilities and where one main road will be taking an ever
increasing amount of traffic, much of which is heavy commercial vehicles. More
genuinely affordable housing would be welcomed by locals wishing to remain in
the area where they are born and brought up.
Mickleton is a small village faced with being engulfed with more housing without additional infrastructure.
The current Government's imposition of huge housing targets in the Cotswolds have pushed the requirement principally into areas not included in the Cotswolds national landscape
and that includes Mickleton, Willowsie and Moreton in the north of the district,
leading to the understandable disquiet of local residents as represented
earlier by Mickleton against inappropriate development. If the
committee decides to support the officer's recommendation I hope they
will request that strong conditions are included to ensure that this development
will be as discreet within the landscape as possible, the roads in it are adopted,
the lighting will not disturb the wildlife in the habitat and the
Serious concerns around infrastructure are addressed for education, employment, health
and retail, including the highways and road safety.
Thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:44:41
Thank you very much.
Again, that was bang on the nail.
Thank you.
Good.
Councillor Layton.
Sorry, I was about to throw it open to discussion.
Councillor Layton has already got her hand up. Thank you.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:45:00
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:45:01
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:45:02
Questions now? Yeah. I have four questions would you like them one at a time or in
one go? Right question one on our bundle page 26 that's 6 .7. Thames water is a
condition for the water supply do we know what that is please because I
Officer - 0:45:28
couldn't find it in the papers. Thank you chair. In this location Thames Water deal
with the supply of water, 7 Trent deal with the disposal of foul water. Thames
Water say there may be issues in terms of water supply pressure so as you as
it's fairly standard they've asked for a condition that sets out a
phrasing plan, infrastructure phrasing plan or details to be agreed and then
that's dealt with by condition. So the applicant would discuss with Thames Water
to ensure that those upgrades can be made and then that would be dealt with
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:46:00
by condition. Can I just ask a second on that? Are we confident that Thames Water,
because we hear it a lot about Thames Water and it used to be as you rightly
said it's not about sewage this time but actually for potable water and we do
hear that quite a lot that we are running out of water and we've got a lot
of applications as we've seen around this site which I guess they're going to be saying
exactly the same thing about and they're all coming in sort of together, although I know
we haven't made decisions on two of them. It's the confidence. Do we have the confidence
Officer - 0:46:41
that they can provide drinking water at reasonable pressure?
They are the relevant body for providing water. That's all I can say. It's their duty under
their legislation and their statutory duty to provide that water supply. If they don't
then there would be other mechanisms to enforce that.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:46:58
Thank you. Question two. I was looking on Google Maps there and obviously on the photographs
and things you've got in here and the plan. Are we considering this as a Brownfield site
or is that actually active employment and is it working? Because it says on Google Maps
about those great big green glass houses
as sort of a trade use, you know,
if they're selling to the trade
and then they've got the smaller units at the front,
which seem to be small, you know,
quite a few small retail places and plants, I guess, as well.
But so the question is, have we got an employment loss
from the closure of this
and the taking down of the glass houses?
Thank you.
Officer - 0:47:46
I'm not aware of there being an employment loss. Like I say, I can't go in, I haven't
got that information before me. We've just looked at the impact on the viability of the
existing uses that are to be retained and whether they can realistically be retained
at all to this development. The existing site isn't a designated employment, established
employment estate, so it's not subject to any policy protection. And if it is of that
size then the level of employment generated by those horticultural buildings would likely
to be relatively low anyway. In answer to your other question, the site technically
isn't previously developed land because it's in horticultural use. Horticultural comes
in the definition of agriculture and that's excluded from brownfield land. That's why
we're getting 40 % affordable housing. So it's not technically previously developed even
though it's developed if you see what I mean. But it's not technically previously developed land.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:48:43
Slightly complicated that. I wasn't expecting that.
Question three. The Schiele, this is on page 57 at 10120. The Schiele says it's suitable,
but with other applications, I think we're looking at about, altogether about 325 as
Councillor Bloomfield said. What we're looking at with the local plan is
actually developing this area probably maybe up to about 400 over 40 years. So
we're looking at a lot of housing that's potentially coming in and there was
obviously concerns about infrastructure, not only Thames Water but other
infrastructure on roads and all the other things that go with these
developments. But looking, I know we've only got to look at this one at a
time but I'm just concerned about how we make sure that the infrastructure works
Officer - 0:49:40
for the whole of Meckleton. Yeah I mean I spoke into planning policy about this
matter because clearly they've got potential intentions to develop larger
scale strategic development in Meckleton but that wouldn't just be housing that
would include employment, schools possibly, education and things like that
retail. These would all be potentially included as part of the overall master
plan which they're currently looking at developing. So if this is going to be
developed and set aside in the future as an area of growth then it will be
subject in the local plan to a policy that covers that and sets out what needs
to be provided as part of that. I know planning policy wants to have a meeting
with all the relevant landowners to get them together so there's a bit more
joined -up thinking and we don't end up with lots of ad hoc proposals. Regards to
the other two sites that I showed to earlier there's quite a lot of
information still requested in relation to those schemes.
So they're not coming forward for determination
anytime soon.
And I personally would rather wait to make a recommendation
on those until I know where we are with planning policy.
I've taken a different view, or we've taken a different view
on this one because of its existing nature
in terms of a lot of, as you said, it's got buildings on it.
It's already largely developed and it is almost quite
independent when compared to the other sites,
which are more interrelated in terms of getting connectivity through and things
like that. So I think at the moment it's reasonable to look at this site in
isolation but I think the other sites we are going to be looking at those in a
more strategic manner when we get further information back on highways and
drainage and biodiversity from the applicants in relation to those sites. So
there can be like I say a bit more joined up thinking in terms of how those
are going to go forward if they do because it may be that we don't think
they are okay. But we are looking clearly at maybe other sites coming forward in Meikleton
as well and we need to look at them on a larger scale basis. In response, sorry I changed
the text slightly, but in response to one of the speaker's comments, yes, last year
I did raise concerns about the impact of the development to the north east of the village
for 120, but that was further out, less easy to walk to facilities and services. Also the
Local Plans has introduced their preferred options
consultation paper in November,
which has indicated that Meckleton can accommodate
a larger amount of growth.
That is something now that we have,
that we didn't have when I was looking at these,
or more laterally, the one in Moreton recently.
Things have moved forward,
and therefore any officer recommendation
has to take into account latest information.
And that's why we're moving in a different direction
in relation to this than we did the other site last year.
Things have moved forward,
and will continue to do so in a few months time.
I'm maybe giving you a different update.
It's just a constantly moving situation, I'm afraid.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:52:29
It's really helpful, actually.
Thank you.
My final question, we've got house sizing.
One, two, and three bed units, they should be making up 80 %
of the development, which is policy, what policy is it?
H1? Yeah. And I'm just concerned a bit
about with the viability are they going to be able to manage that should I not
even be talking about this because this is outlined and perhaps it needs to come
in you know later if it ever if that comes back to committee I don't know but
so I might be asking the wrong question at the or maybe the right question at
the wrong time but we've seen you know what the highways that Council asked for
In terms of their things and we've also got other five, but you know other bar bitters will be come into play as well
Officer - 0:53:24
Sorry, thank you, sir
Yes, it's something the 80 % three bed and below is something I've started to request on the biggest games. I'm dealing with I
We just added to this a condition on the more to
and the planning inspector didn't raise any objections to that. So we've added to this
one as well. Because clearly there is a growing need for smaller units and we don't want the
four and five beds to increase average house prices and put small people in housing needs.
And also, ONS figures lately are indicating smaller house sizes are going to become more
common going forward. So there's a condition attached to this which would say 80%, three
bed and below. We have to deal with an outline stage, it's not something we can do with reserve
matters so it's important that the condition is attached now and then when
reserve matters come in we'd have a schedule showing that that has been
achieved so we can't obviously stop extensions and things happening in the
future but we can do our best to try and get smaller more affordable open market
units as well as just affordable units as well as part of future schemes so
it's something we are looking to secure going forward.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:54:32
Thank you.
Councillor Judd.
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:54:36
Thank you, chair.
I just wanted to explore a little bit further the situation with an outline planning consent
as of today.
Obviously it's not the same as a full planning consent.
So would I be right in saying that thoughts, deep thought given to the conditions on an
outline planning consent could make everybody's life a little bit easier for the Council's
expectations for the best case scenario in the future?
Officer - 0:55:08
Yes, I mean outline, you should deal with anything that covers the principle of development
or the more overriding issues like highways and things like that, or access or drainage
should all be covered through the outline stage. Conditions at the reserve matter stage
are going to be limited to matters relating to like scale, appearance, landscaping and
layout, those kind of matters. So like the design of house materials and those landscape
planting and the internal road layout, that's pretty much what you're limited to at the
reserve matter stage. So anything more strategic kind of in principle kind of level, that's
what you need to address at this stage if you've got particular issues that you need
to raise now.
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:55:50
I was thinking in particular of Councillor Layton's point of the need for smaller properties
with fewer bedrooms and executive homes that the constables are used to, but also the applicants
agent sold us some very attractive information about the type of houses they build with being
net zero and all sorts of insulation, things like that.
But we can't hold that, we can't hold them to those words today.
Officer - 0:56:21
I mean, you could ask for a condition that requires details
of energy efficiency to be as part of a future reserve
matters application, details of energy efficiency, renewable
energy shall be provided as part of that submission.
And then the applicant provides that with the application
at that stage.
And we look at it then.
But you need to put the condition on now just
to get them to focus the mind and we can provide those details there. That would
be something you can do by condition if you wanted to. Thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:56:48
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:56:52
Councillor Coleman. Thank you chair. Thank you colleagues for the interesting points.
I was beginning to be confused then at that last question. I
thought that if we give outlying consent to 20, 30, 40 conditions as they may be,
if every one of those conditions is satisfied in the view of our relevant professional officers,
because there's quite a few of them involved, it doesn't have to come back to committee, does it?
Officer - 0:57:18
At the current moment in time, as a reserve matters application,
if it's a major development, it would normally come back to committee.
However, the government consulting at the moment saying
reserve matters should not come back to committee in the future,
unless it's a phased reserve matter scheme.
So in a few months it may change saying we cannot bring any reserve matters back to committee
regardless of what people's views are.
So that's something that may change as a statutory with legislation.
But at the moment if it's, if members said we'd like reserve matters come back to committee
and then we would normally take note of that and we'd make a note and bring it back in
the future.
So, but I think yeah it's again comes down to, it would also come down to the ward members
as well in terms of whether they thought it was reasonable.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:58:01
If I can follow through on the discussion regarding the other two proposed adjacent
developments and leaving, but not forgetting that there's one to the east which is quite
big as well. Can we actually achieve full cooperation or do we have to condition it?
I have lived in a town which had a major expansion. The developers fell out and we ended up with
most dreadful road system, you can hope for it where you can't get out of
anywhere and you can't get in without going a long way round. Are developers
likely to cooperate if we push them or do we have to rely on their goodwill?
Officer - 0:58:40
I think if they think they're going to get permission they'll probably be quite
amenable to begin with. It then depends on if one developer finds he has to
provide a big area of open space or a GP surgery rather than housing. It affects
land values and things like that then. I think the key really is to know what the local plan
is going to say and what it sets out in its master plan for the village and I think that
is the key really and that's why I'd rather wait a little while longer until I know the
forward plan because that will look at the strategic growth of the town and what's needed
in the town. Sorry the village, sorry it's not a town yet. So I'm getting used to criminal
places towns. So yes, strategically that's something that forward plans are looking at
at the moment and we'll set that out. And that will then set out mechanisms when developers
will go in with their eyes open in terms of what is going to be required for this village
going forward. So I think, yeah, that's a plan -led approach and how planning should
be done. But at the moment we're in a position where it's more of an ad hoc approach to things
because we don't have the plan.
But the local plan, as far as I'm aware,
is going for consultation in August.
So it's not that long to wait before we know what
the direction of travel is.
That's when the regulation 19, I think,
will go out for consultation, hopefully.
And that will set out formally where
the areas of growth are going to be
and kind of policies for things as well.
So I think for those other sites,
I'm kind of hoping we can just delay things a little bit
until we know where we are there.
Because I think that will help the developers as well, to be honest.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:00:17
Thank you.
One more, if I may.
I was interested in the photograph you showed indicating the glass houses and also a signpost
with a list of facilities or a list of outlets.
I couldn't read what they were.
Do you know whether that photograph would tell us, if we looked at it again, is it possible
to read what's on there. I mean there's a garden centre, there's hardware stores, a
Officer - 1:00:49
barber's, a sweet shop, a tonic shop, I don't know, tonic, that's what it said. I haven't
been there so I can't tell you that. And there was something else, but it's those kind of,
there's various things there, there's a mix of things.
What was the last name? The tonic one was a barber's, I'd have to go back, hang on.
As a cafe, so yeah, I dealt with that one.
Thank you.
Obviously not necessary to be totally detailed.
Point is that for me, that's a significant percentage, if not a majority of the community
commercial facilities within the village.
I see this reference to a butchers.
I must remember that and it's probably a post office.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:01:28
That village has got...
No posters.
No posters.
Okay.
Just to clarify, there's a couple...
I apologise, Chair, but sorry.
The challenges, I think, were actually in,
make me ought to pay some attention to the fact
that these current useful community assets, facilities,
that help one walk to get a coffee, for instance,
or indeed to get garden stuff, are gonna go.
And there's no replacement in the plan,
in this application I'm aware of,
because there's probably not room on that site.
Nevertheless, I think if I were a resident in McErdon,
I'd be a bit surprised that a council
of being able to say, yep, that may be 70 % of your community type outlets and retail
places but they are all going to go in one go. It doesn't seem right. Why is it right?
Clearly the development, there is two public houses, a hotel and the post office closed
Councillor David Fowles - 1:02:21
Officer - 1:02:23
a number of years ago. The post office closed a number of years ago. But there is a, I think
a Budgens now, it used to be a nicer convenience store. So there are other Budges. So there
are a few facilities there and all those would benefit clearly from new housing in terms
of people using them. It doesn't necessarily mean that things won't close down because
that's what's happened in the past when we've allowed housing. I think we have to look at
it realistically. This site does offer good cycle pedestrian connectivity to those facilities.
It is within walking distance of those. It's safe routes. And to the primary school as
well, it's 400 or 500 yards away. So there are a lot of things which are more beneficial
than say the site to the north east which was quite a long way, more than a kilometre
out. And allowing sites like this which are more sustainable gives you a stronger argument
than to refuse the ones that are probably more out on a limb really. So I think we are
in a situation, it's difficult at the moment, we have to deliver 1000 houses a year for
next 17 years. That's like something we've never done as a council ever. And there are
going to be a lot of circumstances where in an ideal world, we probably say not ideal,
but as it comes at the moment, we do not think given the tests of does the harm of this one
significantly outweigh the benefits, then that's not the case in this instance.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:03:51
Councillor Nikki Ind - 1:03:55
Thank You councillor end and Thank You chair I just want to clarify something
that we are only losing the glass houses aren't we we're not losing the garden
centre and the barbers so I just wanted to clarify that I was some I thought my
colleague may have misunderstood that so that's fine but that's not my question
my question is around infrastructure which is clearly an issue it's an issue
around the entire district in most of our towns and villages where
infrastructure has reduced as opposed to increasing and I know that we are
looking at that local plan review and we would like to have an infrastructure
first approach which sounds like the strategic thinking with the planning is
coming it's just not here right yet so in order to protect communities in the
meantime is there a way to ring fence all of the sale relating to this only to
be used within the village in order for the village to have the correct
infrastructure for them to decide I know they get a percentage but is there a way
Officer - 1:05:05
for the district council to hold on to all of that specifically for Mifferton
thank you chair yes the parish council would get I think 15 % of a seal they
also get council tax receipts obviously from new housing. It's generally up to if
you want to claim some money you make a bid so you go to the still people in
this council and set out what you looking to spend money on infrastructure
improvements or you go to the County Council and the highway works related
and and you make a bid and then they will decide where that money can go so
yes that's how it works really. You've got to you've got to make a bid for that
Councillor Nikki Ind - 1:05:44
money and that's how. Thank you that was what I'm trying to avoid for this
village that they could they they know and they can be a bit more reassured I
Officer - 1:05:53
think is what I'm talking about. Yeah I mean sorry to compare you there's
nothing to stop councils parish councils coming forward making requests for
section 106 contributions as long as it meets certain tests if there's a
particular issue like contribution towards a children's play area or you
know something like that then the developer can make a contribution to
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:06:16
but we've not had any of those so. Sorry, Councillor Bridges did you have your hand up?
Councillor Nick Bridges - 1:06:20
Thanks. The chap from MAID commented there's going to be 10 to 12 thousand
houses three miles away that was in the context of traffic but that also means
there's gonna be extra infrastructure coming there are we allowed to think
about that or but even though there isn't a different area different county
Officer - 1:06:45
council I suppose I'm aware I'm not aware of any applications in all
development so it's obviously early stages and it can't have any bearing
really on this particular application at the moment it clearly a forward plans
will look at that infrastructure going forward in terms of what would they
require as a master plan for Mickleton having regard to cross boundary
development and what may be happening nearby, such as there's a health care facility in
Lower Quinton up the road. That serves this village, but it's in Stratford. So again,
you'll need to look at whether GPs need to be here or whether you look at increasing
that one. Again, this is all stuff that will be covered through the planning policy process
rather than through individual applications. It's a bit of an unusual situation because
you've got three different councils that all come together quite close together. They all
have to meet their own housing needs and it's just that this particular area of
all three districts is quite suitable for housing development which is why
you're getting quite a lot of pressure given the constraints of the districts
those particular districts elsewhere. So yes it does look like you're getting an
awful lot of housing and it can but part of paragraph 83 I think in the MPPF
talks about how housing in one settlement can benefit the facilities in
another especially when you've got a very rural area it's not likely you're
we're going to find one settlement that has all the facilities to make itself contained,
certainly not in this district. So by building Hazy here, it can then, people here will maybe
go and shop in Tupin Camden or they will use facilities in Willersey or whatever. There
are connexions there. Yes, people will use the car but I think it's the nature of a rural
district. There are, the scheme does provide opportunities to walk and cycle to facilities
and public transport. So it's not, it wouldn't necessarily be solely dependent on the car.
There are opportunities for people to use public transport if they so wish.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:08:38
Thank you. Are there any further questions?
Oh, sorry, Paul. Councillor Evans.
Councillor Paul Evans - 1:08:45
Thank you. I had two questions. I think Councillor Ind may have kind of stolen my thunder on at least one of them.
In clearing up confusion on exactly what of the infrastructure that is currently present would be lost by this development.
I look at the numbers in terms of proposed building
in this village and based on section 10 .24,
I come up with, plus this development,
I come with about 445 homes having been received so far.
This one is from 95, so 20%,
maybe just under of the entire lot.
I absolutely note the infrastructure concerns and that's something that particularly bothers
me that we are starting a process to build houses without necessarily having the local
plan and infrastructure requirements in place.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:09:44
And I think...
Have you got a question?
Councillor Paul Evans - 1:09:50
In terms of ringfence, can we ringfence, can we ringfence
seal monies for this village in isolation? I appreciate the officer's
response on applications being permitted but can we impose a condition for the
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:10:08
money to be solely used for for Mickleton? No, unfortunately not. Seal
regulations are very black and white and specific and say they allocate 15 % to
local area 25 % where there's a neighbourhood plan in place but no we cannot
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:10:19
change that through this planning process. Sorry to cut you off we're going
to move on to comments very shortly so you can chip in again. Any further
questions otherwise we will move on to comments. Councillor Evans do you want to
Councillor Paul Evans - 1:10:34
continue with what you were saying or have you finished? We've pretty much
covered it actually. Infrastructure bothers me and an infrastructure led
approach first approach seems to me that one that we should be following
particularly as we move into a large -scale development across the
district we absolutely must ensure that we have the infrastructure in place. I
get the feeling that that is only August time when we should expect that so I do
question in my mind why we would permit this development now knowing that that
is coming. I'm not sure I can see a valid reason as to why we would not delay
unless there is one and somebody would like to enlighten me.
Officer - 1:11:12
Um, can I, Chair, to come back?
There aren't any objections from any of the infrastructure providers to this application.
Highways, water companies, County Council, Education, none of those parties are objecting.
This is the issue we had recently with Norton in Marsh,
where we were saying it was a 78 % increase in the size of the settlement in 15 years, nearly 1600 houses,
And we've told that there was no infrastructure providers
objecting and we didn't have a leg to stand on.
So I think the point is, I think this application kind of stands
alone from the other ones.
I think the other ones are.
And that's why I think looking at the other ones,
we can delay those.
But I think this one in isolation stands up and isn't
going to have such a level of impact that would merit a
Councillor Paul Evans - 1:12:01
refusal at the current time.
Do we not have a terms water objection or a review that says we can't supply water?
No, because they technically, water companies can't object.
They can only say you have to provide infrastructure capacity upgrades and then you have a condition saying you can't occupy it until those are done.
But under strategy requirements they can't technically object.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:12:27
Thank you. I'm learning.
Well done.
Councillor Layton.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 1:12:31
Well, I'll probably have Angela behind me, whacking me on the head in a minute.
I find it really rather distressing that an ex -councillor who knows all about this is actually doing this speculative,
you've not got a five -year land supply, so I'm going to come in quick before you get your local plan done.
However, from all the questions and all the answers we've had, it's in the Sheila.
I think that Mickleton has probably got the infrastructure to cope with this as it stands
alone and we've got to look at this on its own.
We've asked about, Nikki was asking about, I think it was Nikki was asking about Newland
and the carbon, was it?
Anyway, it doesn't matter.
Newland do do very good in carbon neutral homes,
Julia, I think it was.
And historically, they do very good carbon neutral homes.
And we have to have solar panels and air source heat pumps.
That will all happen.
I would like to think they did a bit more with the battery.
I think we need more than just the standard battery
that goes in to make sure that whatever the sun is giving us
it gets stored.
So I don't know whether we can have a condition on that
because they're normally kind of a minimum size the storage batteries.
I'd like also to think with the MPPF M4 building regs on accessibility,
I think it says 40 % have got to be a minimum of four two,
but that's the basic minimum and they don't have to be basic.
I'd like to see more M4 three which is wheelchair accessible.
so they've all got wider doors and a provision to alter the downstairs
loo into a shower room and loo and that makes it more accessible for everybody
for a longer living home for people so I don't know whether we can put anything
like that in conditions and also do we need H1 in conditions or is that
standard about the one, two and three bedroomed houses at 80%.
But I'd like to be seeing that in reserve matters, that we were definitely going to
get that.
And I just wanted clarification on affordable.
Are we affordable on 30 % because it's already developed land?
Or will it come as 40 % because we're on new dwellings?
Officer - 1:15:05
It's not previously developed land technically so they're subject to 40 % across the site.
So we're getting 40 % which would be 38 affordable units.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 1:15:18
I think I've got to say I've proposed that we take the officer's recommendation to permit
and that's my proposal.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:15:29
Thank you Sue.
We have a proposal on the table.
Does anyone, sorry, okay councillor Judge would you like to make a comment then
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:15:42
I'll come to you councillor Bridges. Well I don't want to t -bone councillor Leighton's
proposal to to support officers recommendation I just wanted to explore
further the scope of conditions that we can put on today that will make an
influence in the future that will help officers in the
future, but also deliver a site which can be exemplary
in its offering of what's actually required rather than
what makes the most money.
I do think that it's important to focus on the
smaller units because we all know that we're an ageing
population and people need to move down.
So I would need officer's support or help in trying to verbalise that or put it down
as a condition that's acceptable.
Also when it comes to the home rating efficiencies and techniques, that would be important to
us.
I really enjoyed what you said about the wood and looking after that footpath and creating
the bicycle park around it.
I mean, obviously considerable thoughts gone into this.
I also really congratulate the developer for liaising so well
with the local community.
Nobody wants 95 houses built on their doorstep.
But we've got our hands tied behind our back.
We have to deliver a certain amount of houses.
and when it's done in a reasonable and open way like this,
it's much easier for us to make a decision.
This application is also going to be heavily conditioned
on all the infrastructures
and that this isn't a full application today.
So there's an awful lot that needs to come through,
which should be of benefit locally,
but we don't know what that is yet.
So there's a lot of unknowns,
but I'm asking for officers for help
to try and deliver the best possibly we can for the future.
And the two things that I really focus on.
Officer - 1:18:06
So the chair, yeah, I mean, we could,
if members are agreeable, we can ask,
I mean, it would just be along the lines of said earlier,
application for reserve matters shall include
a energy renewable, energy statement that covers those sustainable and demonstrates
how each property will address the issue of climate change or something to that effect.
It will be clearly building regulations covers quite a lot of it and we can't duplicate building
regulations but if we're looking for something that's slightly over building regulations
then we can get the applicant to clarify exactly what they're doing and how they're going to
achieve it.
So I don't think there's any issue with putting a condition
on requires details to be included as part of the reserve
matters.
That's fine.
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:18:50
Thank you for your response on that basis.
I'm prepared.
I'm happy to support council Layton's recommendation to
support your recommendation.
Thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:19:00
Councillor bridges.
Were you also about to second to the recommendation?
Do you have anything else you'd like to say?
Okay. I think a council Jetta's still in your thunder
Councillor Coleman.
No, I'm not.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:19:12
Councillor Evans, did you have something else you wanted to say?
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:19:16
Anybody else got anything before we proceed to the vote?
Can I? Sorry.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:19:24
Yes, thank you.
Can I just clarify, Juliette, you're happy with the Councillor,
because it's your proposal to permit.
Are you happy with the condition that Councillor Jurders recommended?
Councillor Juliet Layton - 1:19:34
Well I kind of, I think we already get from Newland and they've already said
that they're going to be using air source heat pumps, solar panels, EV charges. All I
said was could we have extra batteries because that is very useful. The
minimum that comes with, I think that's on building regs anyway now, so that
happens. We don't need to condition most of that. I'd like extra batteries because
that is very useful. We've got building regs I think on M4 and 2 and 3. If they
just go for 2, 40 % is the basic minimum of houses that have got to go on M2.
But I'd quite like to see a bit more M3 because that is really useful for,
and I don't know whether we can put that in as a condition when it's already a
reg and the other bit I was talking about was local plan H1 which is 80 % and
that was the question I asked earlier was are we going to cope with all of
this with the viability or are we is there going to be kickback so really I
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:20:44
think I'd said everything that Julie was saying prior to that yeah my advice would
be we don't have a policy that I think we could hinge quite such a specific
condition on I think obviously we've had this discussion in a public forum the
applicants have heard what members would like to see if we were to include
Councillor Judd's condition hopefully they'd be able to bring forward as much
of that as possible as part of the reserve matters application so I'd
recommend going with the condition that Councillor Judd has recommended we can
obviously it's been discussed in this meeting so the applicants know what
we're looking for then and we can hopefully reserve matters see that come
Councillor Juliet Layton - 1:21:16
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:21:18
forward. So we're going to move forward to vote to go with your office's
to permit this could you just verbalise exactly what we attaching as the
condition as well thank you. So you haven't written anything formally down but it would just be along
the lines of application of reserve matters shall be accompanied by an energy
renewable statement which seeks to address the impact of climate change it's
going to need some more wording but it's kind of along those lines it's requiring
the developer to provide an energy and renewable energy statement which covers
the matters you've raised today are we'll put some extra wording in but
that's along those lines. So we're voting to accept the
recommendation and we're letting you tweak that condition. Sorry I'm also very
concerned about old people finding homes in the future. I do think, I hope
that's not ageist, but I do think some thought needs to be given to smaller
properties for people moving down because we are an ageing population and I
quite if there is a possibility of getting that slipping that in there is a
condition attached saying 80 % three beds and below in the current recommendation
Officer - 1:22:31
so we would get 80 % three bed below which would address some of the
concern that's part of the condition so
Officer - 1:22:45
and just clarify that the recommendation section 106 also needs to
call include the school transport contributions yes and any conditions
recommended by the biodiversity office
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:23:36
Are you planning to leave because could you send Councillor Fowles back in if you're going to leave?
You're very welcome to stay
Can somebody bring Councillor Fowles back in?
.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:24:40
Thank you very much.
Has somebody asked Councillor Fowles to come back in?
Is he coming?
If he doesn't come now he won't be able to vote.

9 25/01623/FUL - Land at Grid Reference 401975 198339 - Spratsgate Lane , Siddington

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:25:19
Thank you very much.
We're moving on to our second application,
which is land at grid reference, as it says,
Sprat's Gate Lane, Siddington,
installation of solar farm associated infrastructure
and grid connexion cable run,
I won't read out the grid reference
because it's a lot of series of numbers,
at Sprat's Gate Lane, Siddington,
so our ancestor, the case officer,
it's Martin Perks again,
sorry Martin, you're having a long afternoon with us.
and the award member is Councillor Evermy.
Please could you update us on the application?
Officer - 1:25:58
Yes, thank you, Chair.
On the additional pages, there's just one objection
that was received just raising points about orientation
and drainage, et cetera.
I'll come to the orientation element later
in the presentation, but just as an update,
obviously the report mentioned about biodiversity,
environment agency and BNG again.
Applicants has confirmed that they go
to the district licencing route for Great Crested Utes, so that will take a few weeks
to resolve, but that makes the process a lot simpler and they don't need to go to Natural
England if that's resolved through that process, although that process will require conditions
to be added to any future permission, so we'd need to have flexibility in doing that.
In response to the BAT issue, the applicants withdrawn the battery storage from the application,
but that doesn't mean it won't come back in the future, it's just something that's been
taken out for the moment so we can consider the impact on bats
in more detail at a later date.
Transformers have also been removed further from existing
hedgerows, again, to try and minimise disturbance on bat
species that may be flying along the hedgerows.
So the BNG matter, again, further information is with the
biodiversity office, so again, that we think we can all be
resolved.
It's just part of normal discussions during the course
of the application.
So, we think moving forward and I'll go through the presentation and hopefully provide you
with some clarification of the proposal.
The main body of the site where the solar panels would be is about 2 kilometres to the
south of Sire Ancestor just to the east of the village of Ewen, to the south west of
So it's closest to Ewen of all the nearby villages.
The application also includes an access route which would cable route which would extend
up to the southern part of Syrinsester where there's an existing substation and that
would connect you to the national grid.
About midway along on the road between, peels off from Strathgate Lane to Ewen, a substation
would be put in that particular location as well.
The panels as shown there across the site, the area in brown orange to the south west
is the skylark area which has been mitigation area which will be set aside for skylarks.
The existing woodland in the southern part of the site would be retained as would existing
hedgerows. New landscape planting will be introduced primarily along the southern edge
of the site and provide extra buffering and landscaping.
This is heading south along Sprat's Gate Lane, looking eastwards.
That's pretty much the standard view along that road.
You've got quite an established headway which largely screens the site.
This bottom picture is the proposed site entrance which utilises an existing entrance on a layby,
so that doesn't require any significant changes.
Top photograph looking westwards towards Ewan, the application site on the right. Again,
as I mentioned, new landscaping will be introduced behind that hedgerow just to give an extra
buffer there. And the bottom photo is looking eastwards along the lane with the application
site on the west with the trees in the background which would all be retained. This is Southleash
house which is the closest house to the site to the south. So again you can see it from
looking eastwards and then looking directly southwards to the property. There is a degree
of screening between the property and the solar farm. The main exposed aspect of the
site is from the lane, goes from Lewin to Spratsgate Lane to the northwest. It's quite
an open landscape but the site itself, if you look at the two electricity pylons, there's
edge row which goes in horizontal direction or orientation at the bottom. The panels would
sort of be beyond that. So there's quite a degree of separation between the lane and
the solar panels. Again, we don't think that would have any material impact on the landscape
when viewed from this road. And solar panels themselves. The panels rotate so they are
orientated in a north -south direction in lines. They will start off facing eastwards and then
and they turn over and face westwards at the end of the day.
So the days of having fixed solar panels
are kind of gone on sites like this.
So this site kind of gives it a bit more flexibility
in terms of solar capture.
It's a tracking system, I think I've been told
by the applicant, so it gives an indication of that.
In terms of other solar palms in the area,
the yellow dots to the south is the current site.
There's three other sites to the east,
south east of Sire Ancestor that have been allowed
in the last decade or so in those locations, one to the east of Preston and northwest of
Anthony Creases and one right on the southern edge of Siddington. There's another one which
the applicant are currently building to the southwest of Kemble Wick, which goes into
Wiltshire. That's too far away to fit onto this plan, but they are the main sites in
this location. And this is the one at Whitpit Lane to the east of Preston. As again, the
panels facing east. The bottom one is one I took in the evening and it shows the panels
facing west. So again it shows how the panels turn over and that's a kind of similar arrangement
to what the applicant is proposing. So hopefully, thank you very much.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:31:37
Thank you very much. So we've got two speakers. We've got a supporter, Andy Farmer, and the
agent Harry Singh Judd. Would you like to come forwards?
Thank you very much. Just to remind you that you both have three minutes.
Councillor Judd is on the case. Thank you very much. So Mr Fomer would you like to
Supporter - 1:32:16
start thanks good afternoon my family and I have lived on the farm since 2023
in the listed Fers and Lees farmhouse we're tenants the sites not on our land
although we know the land well and we have nothing to do with the proposed
solar farm beyond it being owned by our landlord and giving feedback on the
proposal but I wouldn't normally be coming in to make a public speech on it
but as our home has been referenced in people's comments
in the planning application, my wife and I felt
it was important for us to speak today.
We support the development for the following reasons,
but it's only on the caveat that the developer
accommodates the needs of the residents
that directly join the land,
and that's during the construction as well as after,
with a particular focus on noise and dust.
So my wife and I request that council has some kind of requirement for the developer
to gain some kind of agreement around reasonable construction noise and dust management, which
I'm pretty sure is factored in anyway.
We're just very keen to make sure that that does get factored in.
In terms of why we support it, biodiversity, so the majority of the fields in this application
are hard to work.
They've always struggled to make a profit and have been intensively farmed for many
years so as a result there's been declining soil health year after year noticeable drop
in biodiversity and the land needs resting for many years to recover.
So using solar panels seems like an ideal way to fund this regeneration and biodiversity
with the caveat that whenever they do get removed in the future that permissions are
made to ensure they don't contaminate the soil.
We also need to be able to support our farmers to make a profit from their lower quality
land so they can then pay for the work that is needed on the higher quality land.
No farmers, no food, etc.
If it was great quality farmland which allowed them to make a regular profit, then they would
just continue farming it.
But this particular set of land in this application isn't for the most part.
So we need to support those who are generally farming.
And if it wasn't used for solar, I
wouldn't be surprised if it was used for something
like housing or otherwise.
Solar biodiversity seems like the best combo.
And then finally, in terms of community and heritage,
currently it's exempt from paying any business rates,
being agricultural land.
Whereas once it's generating electricity,
there's another 50 grand or so a year
to the local council for business rates.
And it's also an opportunity for the developer to fix any existing drainage issues that are
there in the community because I don't think they would get solved otherwise.
Listed building wise, it will affect our view but it's pretty straightforward to screen
and if we can see a solar farm full of sheep we're actually quite happy to make that trade
off given the other benefits.
So that's why we are in support.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:35:33
And now can I ask Mr Singh Judd, the agent, to speak. Thanks.
Applicant/Agent - 1:35:40
Good afternoon members. My name is Harry Singh Judd and I'm a planner at Aura Power, the applicant for Furze and Lee's solar farm.
Firstly I'd like to thank officers for their cooperative work on this application and for recommending the scheme for approval.
Oura Power is the developer of the nearby Kemble Solar Farm, which has recently come
into operation.
Through Kemble Solar Farm, we've established positive relationships with the local community
and stakeholders, taking a collaborative approach to landscaping, site design and surface water
management, demonstrating our responsible delivery of projects in this area.
Cotswold District Council declared a climate emergency in 2019 and an ecological emergency
in 2020.
This application directly addresses both of these positions that the Council has taken
by delivering a 25 megawatt solar farm which will power more than 13 ,000 homes with green
renewable energy as well as delivering a substantial biodiversity net gain of 55 % over baseline
conditions.
At page 134 of the Planning Officer's Report, it is confirmed that the provision of renewable
energy of the scale proposed represents a significant benefit that weighs in favour
of the proposed scheme.
The project also aligns with the Government's Clean Power 2030 Action Plan and, as outlined
in our supporting grid connexion statement, it has been prioritised for connexion by
NISO before 2030, strengthening both energy sovereignty and security in Britain, reducing
reliance on volatile imported fossil fuels and bringing down costs to the consumer.
79 % of the land at the site is confirmed as not best to most versatile agricultural land
and through the lifetime of the development the land will be laid to rest from farming
practises which will ensure that the quality of the land is improved at the time of decommissioning.
Public sentiment is overwhelmingly positive with 65 letters of support and 12 objecting.
This success is a result of our commitment to the community by engaging with residents
and statutory bodies, we've evolved the proposal into a revised scheme that proactively manages
its local impact. Through listening to residents, we've enhanced our design with additional tree
planting to further mitigate any visual impact. We've also reconfigured on -site infrastructure
and to address flooding concerns, we provide a further clarity on matters of hydrology and
committed to a detailed surface water drainage strategy through the planning conditions.
While noting that this is also not a planning consideration, we are offering an annual community
benefit fund of £10 ,000 a year.
Finally, this is a fully reversible development seeking temporary approval.
At the end of its operational life, the site will be decommissioned and the vast majority
of the materials being reused or recycled.
We're pleased that your planning officers have concluded that the benefits of the scheme
outweigh the limited harms identified and we respectfully ask members to support your
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:38:41
recommendation and approve the application. Thank you. Thank you very
much. Well done. Would you both like to return to your seats? I can't see
Councillor Ebony in the chamber. Has a central report? Okay in that case we can
Councillor Juliet Layton - 1:38:59
move on to questions. Councillor Layton. I'm loving being on Planning Committee. I was quite worried but now I'm
I think this is a really good thing we're doing.
I don't like hearing about the state of the land because I think if we were all regenerative
farming the land would be in pretty good nick rather than exhausted, but that's by the by.
The question is the solar capture that you demonstrated there, Martin, means that the
late page late pages objector was wondering why the pictures were facing
east and west that nullifies that objection that we got on late pages
fabulous um South Cerny parish council have said that the the solar panels are
really close to the edges at 3 .5 metres and they're saying they should be at 20
metres and I don't know about that so if you could let me know if that's a normal
thing or are we are they building too close to the hedges and my final
question would be the applicant talked about the public benefit of
Officer - 1:40:18
ten thousand pound a year and to whom does that go to and how? Thank you. I'm
the panel. So what I can say is the southern boundary which is more open, the southern
hedgerow is a bit more lower and because in response to comments from the south -east farm
owner to the south, the applicants agreed to put increased additional landscaping and
buffering through that area so there's a bigger separation distance there. But as far as I'm
concerned, in terms of we look at it, the potential impact on wildlife and biodiversity
and bird nesting and things like that, but given once they're installed they are largely
static and not going to generate any particular issues. We don't see any
particular concerns there other than obviously future maintenance and
management of the hedge over cutting or whatever but three and a half metres
would be sufficient for that so it's more a matter for the applicant and
ultimately as long as we're satisfied that the landscape impact can be
mitigated by them being in that location which we think it can be in this
instance then we are fine with that.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 1:41:22
The other one was about the public benefits. I was going to ask about public benefit and
the agent or applicant mentioned it and I wondered who it was being paid to.
Officer - 1:41:35
That's not a matter for us so we have no involvement in that. We can't get involved.
Business rates issue is something that is a consideration but again that isn't a reason
why we're allowing this application.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:41:49
Councillor Judd and then Councillor Bridges.
Thank you. I just wanted to explore a bit more the lifespan. Is it 25 years?
40.
40 years. So do we know any more about how long it will take for the soil to become healthy
again and does it need some help? It's probably nothing to do with this application but in
a way it is.
Officer - 1:42:23
No, I mean what normally happens with solar farms is that the land is essentially after
the build process, the land is effectively left fallow. If it's left to grass it will
grow. Sometimes landowners put sheep on it to maintain it so the sheep could co -exist.
but from experience the land just lies there and will gradually renew itself.
But I know we're decommissioning strategy condition statement in 40 years time,
so planning officer will have to deal with a condition relating to decommissioning.
But yeah, it's in effect, the land will just not be farmed for 40 years
other than maybe some grazing of animals, so that's all I can say really.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:43:02
Councillor Bridges.
Councillor Nick Bridges - 1:43:05
Summerford Cane's parish council and others have drawn attention to the
flooding of Seancote. Now Seancote has a sewage processing plant. I'm particularly
concerned that any concentrated runoff will make problems of flooding worse. Do
Do you have any concerns for that or are you sure that that will be fixed?
The applicants provide a detailed surface water drainage scheme, flood risk assessment,
which ensures that surface water shouldn't flow off the site at a greater rate than existing
or taken into account climate change as well.
The Environment Agency at the moment are looking at additional information,
which in terms of climate change figures.
So that's with them and we're just waiting for the Environment Agency to come back on that matter.
The lead local flood authority are satisfied that the flow of water from the site isn't
going to be above existing greenfield rates.
So the relevant bodies looking at these matters are acceptable.
We'll consider those to be acceptable at the moment.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:44:14
Councillor Fowls.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:44:18
Thank you, Jim.
I've got a few questions.
One is could you, Martin, if you could just clarify the landscaping.
All those photographs, some were taken by you but some were obviously from Google, so
they're all current photographs.
So we're seeing the growth that's there, the landscaping sort of almost at its fullest
extent.
Is that correct?
And you said that, I think we said one of the, it's quite exposed at one end, but the
other three sizes, they're going to be reasonably well covered in terms of the site.
Yeah, there's quite extensive hedgerows around it, at all times of the year, even in winter
when the leaves dry up, they're still fairly substantial roadside hedgerows.
I mean, the street view is taken from about two and a half metres height, so it's actually
you're going to be lowered down anyway.
I know the area, you can drive around it, walk around it.
So like I say, the most exposed one was that photograph from the north, which I took last
summer, which was looking across the fields.
but from all the other vantage points you will struggle to see to the site.
The only one that was an exception in a few months ago, the landowner,
the southern boundary cut back the hedgerow to the south as part of normal management
and it took it lower, but that's the area we're asking for additional landscape planting anyway,
because that was the lower part, that was one of the lower hedgerows around the site.
So that would be part of the landscaping scheme and the landscaping scheme condition does indicate
additional landscape planting along that southern edge just to give extra buffer
and along that part of the site but the sprat scape lane entrance and all the
landscape visually back assessment photographs the ones I've taken there is
fairly substantial field hedgerows along those. Okay the second the second
question chairman is relation to the buildings that you refer to on page 129
that there'll be an associated equipment and storage facilities batteries etc
It's a form of functional metal clad structures and that they lie on the eastern boundary
of the site.
So could you just indicate where that would be on the map that's on page, I assume it's
page 174.
Did you say that the eastern end of the site was the one that was quite open?
No, the north west is the east Disprat Scate Lane,
that's the one with the quite substantial hedge row.
The applicant has moved some of the transformers.
The brown roads, or the black dots,
if you can see, they're where the buildings,
or the transformer plant buildings
would generally go within the site.
So they've moved -
So they're spread across the site?
Spread across the site.
They've moved some of them away from hedge rows,
specifically to try and avoid noise disturbance to bats,
because the hum could affect bats,
so there's an issue there in terms of,
they've been moved around slightly
to just try and move them within the site,
transformers and move them away from boundaries. So you shouldn't, they would be screened by
the panels to be fair. So they're located on the site in a sensitive way bearing in
mind the landscaping and neighbouring properties etc. Yes they are where as you can see on
the screen, most of them are going to be within the interior of the site rather than on the
edge of it. And the related question that you mentioned noise, do they, I mean I remember
when the Preston site came and the site just outside Barnsley,
and noise was a factor.
I mean, in terms of the noise, is that an environmental issue?
Do they hum?
What sort of noise do they make, the storage units?
There's a low kind of hum, kind of drone.
Interestingly, the panels and transplants
here is further from housing than the one
at the site in Sillington, which is right next to housing.
but April Pantone, our noise officer, is here today, so she may have a bit more clarification over the type of noise and what we're asking for in terms of mitigation.
So it's a low sort of hum, is it?
It's a low hum.
And related to that, given that originally solar panels were sort of fixed in one orientation and modern ones are tracked, do they, so the whole lot tracks at one time I would imagine, does that make a noise?
I'm not aware of any degree, no.
The last question, I had a question related to the £10 ,000, but you said we can't comment on that, which Julia asked.
The last question is in relation to the quality of the land.
The applicant said that 75 % of the land was low quality agricultural land,
because this has been an issue on other solar panel sites, the quality of the land you're putting on.
So what quality is the remaining 25 %?
Because that is quite a significant percentage.
Are we putting solar panels on some good quality land?
I suppose it's simple.
No, I mean, some of it's grade two, and some of it's grade 3A.
So grade 3B isn't best and most versatile.
Grade 3A is.
So I'm not aware that it's grade one.
I need to double cheque.
Sorry.
Give me a second.
It's 18 % grade 3A and 18 % grade 2, grade 3.
In the context of the site hold, the majority of it is not best or most versatile land so
it's got a low quality in terms of that type of thing.
I don't know if April wanted to comment on the noise matter in more detail.
Officer - 1:49:54
I am April Painton, Environmental Health Officer for Noise and Amenities.
Part of the site we looked at the application and submitted a noise management plan in relation
to the site.
are any kind of concern that's flagged up as a result of the changes in the locations of the
inverter sites themselves. So, but we've requested as part of the application a condition where the
applicant will submit a revised noise management plan within six months after development is
complete so that we can account for any changes we can account for any changes
that have happened on the site in relation to this new plan so that
condition will cover that and the noise management plan suggests that there will
be kind of hardly any impact to residential properties it was a 1 DB
different but that was based on the previous plan that they submitted so
and obviously the condition that we've recommended will allow us to look at the
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:51:15
actual situation as part of the condition. Thank you.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:51:23
Councillor Coleman. Thank you Chair. On page 171 we've got the site boundary which
includes the long thin strand to the north and into the edge of the steadings, which
I think is for the cable that carries the power to where it will be useful.
I'm wanting to know where it becomes a thick red line.
Is that by any chance because it's able to connect into what I believe already exists
and has certainly already been given permission, which is a similar long piece of cable from
from an earlier application made, I think, by Basshurst some years ago for a similar
solar farm for which they created a place for the electricity to go into the grid, I
think, roughly where that thick red line, at the end of that thick red line. I'm just
hoping we're not going to have to, just want reassurance. Sorry, it's such a long question.
Officer - 1:52:28
I think you'll have to dig a parallel trench or are they able to connect into an existing
cable?
The current applicant is the same applicant who did the Campbell Wick scheme, which had
a similar connexion to that substation national grid connexion on there.
My understanding is that they would all connect together.
It makes no sense to have two separate ones.
It's just that that's where it's thinner there because it goes up the road rather than through
fields.
So, but ultimately it's within that red line is where they would have to put it.
So if it works to the highway, they'll have to get the highway authorities agreement to do it.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:52:58
And I also belatedly mentioned that I didn't spot that I do know Andy Farmer,
the one, the supporter slightly, not enough to clear an interest,
but Andy has attended as an observer at Syr ancestor town council events
and offered himself, unsuccessfully as it turned out,
but offered himself a co -option to the council.
So perhaps I should sound familiar with Andy
rather than I know him.
I think we've had about three conversations.
Sorry, I didn't spot that earlier.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:53:33
Thank you very much.
I wanted to just ask a question about the decommissioning.
Is that standard practise to decommission solar panels
after 40 years would you normally expect that to happen or is this just in
Officer - 1:53:49
relation to the regeneration of the farmland? No we need a mechanism to
ensure that they are taken away if we don't have a decommission strategy and
set a time period the applicant could just walk away and leave them so we need
some mechanism to ensure that they do actually say they are they say they're
going to take them away and when we do want them to ensure that they do and do
take away everything and leave the land in a reasonable condition once they've
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:54:10
Officer - 1:54:13
So they wouldn't be allowed to have them permanently is what I'm trying to get at?
If the current condition says within I think six months of the cessation of the use, so it wouldn't limit it to 40 years, could be 60 years, but if say the applicant went out of business or whatever in 10 years time, that condition would then kick in within six months of cessation of the use, we could require them to be removed then.
So I think 40 years is the lifespan of when the solar panels will be efficient.
So usually they would be removed then, but things may change going forward.
So it may be that it carries on after that.
The condition would say removal within six months of cessation.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:54:52
So it could be longer, but at the moment it's set out as 40 years.
So if they wanted to replace them or upgrade them in any way,
Officer - 1:54:58
they would need to come back with a separate planning permission essentially?
If materially altering the scheme are putting different types of panels and
different locations it would potentially need new application yes.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:55:07
Councillor Juliet Layton - 1:55:10
Thank you very much. Councillor Layton. Thank you very much for letting me come back
because I was I was going to ask that about a condition but you've already
said that decommissioning is a condition but I'm you know there are going to be
some that don't work and I just want to make sure that they get recycled because
in 40 years something's going to go wrong with one of them at least isn't it
but I'd you know they they need to be recycled and not left around in the
field or something but I was wondering is there any is there any benefit in the
condition to actually having a bond to say that they you know to make sure this
is decommissioned and then we're talking about what might be 40 years time but
companies go out of, you know, they run out of money, they go bust and run away.
How would we then make sure that that was completely cleared up and would a bond help that?
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:56:10
You can't secure financial contributions through planning conditions so that we couldn't do that if we wanted to.
Ultimately, if they breach that condition, we'd have a breach of conditions notice.
if there was an issue from a financial point of view we'd have to deal with that there and then.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:56:29
Anyone else with a question? Yeah, Councillor Fowles.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:56:33
Thank you for allowing me to come back, Chairman. I too didn't spot Andy Farmer as the supporter,
which I apologise to Andy. I know him, seen him campaign on behalf of
a party that's receiving quite a lot of attention at the moment, so we'll credit to him.
But I don't have any other interest in that, otherwise nice to see him.
Second question, the question I had was in relation to the perimeter fencing.
I can't find in the document, that must be my shortcoming, but I remember in Preston,
we were very concerned about the nature of the security fencing that went round it.
I wondered if you could just brief us on what type of fencing there will be around the site
Officer - 1:57:20
It's a fairly low -key kind of deer proof fencing. It's not like big
Palisade fencing or anything like that. It's a fairly mesh. It's a mesh kind of thing is to keep animals out. Yeah
It's a mesh kind of thing. Yeah
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:57:35
Okay. Thank you
Okay, so no further questions, we'll move on to comments anyone
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:57:42
Okay, councillor judge far away
Thank you. I'll be brief, Chair. I am hugely comforted that a tenant farmer of this land
has come in and explained his position, so thank you for making the effort, because it
is in the back of your mind if you don't know how a tenant farmer is going to be affected
by something like this. It's also a massive comfort to know that the land is exhausted.
We hear about this all the time, but I can honestly say it's the first time that I've
seen it in front of my very eyes in Council that it seems like a good solution for the
land. And I would say what is food security is obviously of incredible importance. I just
think it's insane not to be food secure. But also energy security is arguably more important.
I mean, it really is so incredibly important.
So if Sarancestor is generating its own power, well, all good for Sarancestor or the Cotswolds.
It's a win -win situation as far as I can see.
And most development cannot be undone, whether it's good development or bad development.
It can't be undone.
Except for this.
I mean, hooray.
What's not to love?
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:59:07
Okay, thank you
Councillor Coleman, I think you had your hand up, did you not?
Thank you, Chair. Yes, and thank you to Julia for those positive points, which I think I very much agree with.
I would like to propose the officers recommendations.
Thank you. Councillor Bridges.
Well, I suppose I could second it, but I also need to declare that I know Andy Farmer as well.
Would anyone in the room like to admit that they don't know Antifa?
I recognise him.
He stood against me.
But what an excellent idea for the sheep in particular.
They've hopefully got somewhere they can get some shade as well.
So I'm going to second this.
So we've a proposal by Councillor Conlon, seconded by Councillor Bridges.
But other people want to say something?
Councillor Fowles, do you have a comment?
I personally think we all recognise the need for energy security,
but in the context of what we're looking at, particularly around this area,
with B -52s flying over the place all the time,
to be more self -sufficient with energy is quite a good thing.
That doesn't mean I support Ed Miliband in any way, shape or form.
I'm concerned about what Juliet Layton said,
the future proofing of these schemes where we've got lots of very large solar panel farms around Sire and Cestor
Councillor David Fowles - 2:00:30
and these companies come and go and we have to think about what the future implications are if a company ceases to be.
It's not like a storage unit on an industrial estate, these are very significant commitments and use of land
and it's something we should be mindful of but at the moment we can't do anything about. That's all I've got to say. Thanks.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:00:46
Councillor Paul Evans - 2:00:51
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:00:56
Councillor Evans. I too admit to knowing Andy Farmer actually. He stood against me as well. I didn't want to miss out.
Councillor Paul Evans - 2:00:58
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:01:09
But I do think this is to echo Councillor Judd's points, driving towards energy security with this kind of thing and having it reversible is a win -win.
Thank you. Councillor Lachlan did you have a comment you wanted to make?
Councillor Juliet Layton - 2:01:17
No I was going to second. That was all.
Legal Services - 2:01:35
Can I just be clear with everyone's declarations and comments in respect of knowing the supporter
that no one would have,
with previous knowledge of who the gentleman was,
no one would have declared an interest
that was sufficient to remove themselves
from the room or the vote.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:01:57
Thank you very much for that clarification.
So we'll move to the vote
to accept the office's recommendation
to improve the installation of the solar farm
and associated infrastructure and grid connexion cable.
So we'll move to the vote to accept that recommendation
proposed by Councillor Coleman
and seconded by Councillor Bridges.
Good, that's unanimously approved.
Thank you.
So we're now two hours into our planning committee meeting.
Would anyone like to take a comfort break?
We will be back just before quarter past, please.
I shall bang the gavel and herd you back in.

9 25/01623/FUL - Land at Grid Reference 401975 198339 - Spratsgate Lane , Siddington

Thank you for returning promptly.
I know there are one or two people who have to go, so we need to be as slick as possible
looking at these very important applications but perhaps you could keep
your comments and questions to the point and not repeat what other people have

10 25/02960/FUL - Shoecroft Barn, Ablington, Bibury, Cirencester Gloucestershire

said that would be marvellous. So we're turning now to application 2502960
full, the full application for the conversion of ground floor of existing
barns from general storage to cafe with retail areas including amendments to the
lean to and decking patio area and associated alterations that Shuecroft
Barnes, Ableton, Bybury. So in the first instance we're just looking at the full
application rather than the list of building consent although as discussed
before Councillor Fells when he speaks is going to address both issues. So can I
Officer - 2:03:56
ask the case officer who is Amy Hill to continue with the application. Thank you
Chair. So the applications the conversion of the existing ground floor of property.
There has been it's been noted there is a slight error with the red outline on
this application plan it doesn't include a corner of one of the barn. It's
considered given this is quite clear what the development is on the other
plans that this doesn't prejudice the determination so we're going to proceed
with it but please note if the recommendation if if councillors decide to
permit the application and this applies to both the full and the LBC then we
will have to do an element of re -consultation and if there's any new
issues raised during that then we'll liaise with the review panel.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:04:43
Officer - 2:04:51
Sure, louder and a bit slower, please. Okay, so the, I think I'm pretty as close as I can possibly be.
The site, red outline on the site location plan has an error. It doesn't include the corner of
the barn so we are going to if so if councillors end up going with the
recommendation to permit for either the full or the list of building consent
application we will have to go out for a consultation if anything's raised during
that that's a new matter then we'll discuss it with the review panel but
given that the plans otherwise are quite clear that part is included in the
proposal we don't consider it prejudice is anyone for the purposes of the
application so I shall start going through the presentation. So the
applications for the conversion of the ground floor of the existing barns and
general storage to a cafe with retail area and including amendments to the
lean twin decking area with associated alterations and we're talking about our
property to the to the west of vibrates or the northwest corner as you go out
towards Ablington. On the left -hand side associated with the trout farm there is
a barn just near where the car park is and we're in the it is a grade two
listed building and is in the conservation area and national
landscape and it's identified with the star for the purpose of this. It's about
300 metres to the centre sort of there's the main bridge as you go over when
you're in by we were driving over opposite strong there's a bridge and
about 300 metres along the road from there with the river coal to the front of the site
or to the south of the site, although the property itself is in flood zone one.
What you can also hopefully see on that plan, although possibly better here, is that to
the north, so we have the site outlined in red and yellow, over the road and just to
the northwest is an existing car park that was permitted a few years ago as overflow
car park for the trout farm and so that one is actually lawful use. There is an
overflow that's currently pending consideration to the south of that
that's just above the barn you can see on the left side and that the
application is pending consideration so it's not, they can use it currently for
about 28 days a year without permission but it's not part of the sort of
considerations of the application particularly. It's also worth bearing in
mind that the area to the east of, sorry to the west of the barn, so the left hand side
the barn and in between those two buildings there's an application that's
been permitted to use that area as a child's play area. To highlight the barn
itself, so this is the elevation that fronts onto the road, so it's a
traditional although with alterations such as the window there as more
domestic. There's been various missions on the site
previously that have allowed it to become residential. Primarily that's
limited to the first floor, first and second floor although and it's mainly
storage area below. And just that's there's mention of a lean to in the
application that is the lean to. And then the end gable which you can see again
it's quite domesticated that was a late 70s early 80s application. And then the
rear and the sort of the riverside where you can see a lot more significant
alteration in terms of creating those sort of internal balconies. So with
conversion of that building you'll see most at the front and then also the one
just on the left -hand side where you can see the corrugated metal roof. That's the
area which hasn't been included in the red line and this is the area where the
bar, so that red roof shelter shed structure and then from the back just so
you're standing more on the side where the children's play area is permitted
is currently, I believe, being constructed.
To take you back to the roadside,
so this is if you were leaving the car park
mentioned previously.
So if you're in the car park,
leaving the car park and heading towards
the trout farm into Bybury,
you'd cross the road around here,
and you can see that in front of you,
you've got an access into paved parking
and the barn behind it.
And also to the left, you can start seeing a pavement
or a footpath into town.
That's not necessarily a regularised one, so it's somewhat limited
materiality, but you can see it tucks there behind it, and that's your route into the village.
And then just to highlight the car park just in case, because that's the entrance into it and the car parking area.
So that's our proposed site plan, which doesn't have an awful lot on it.
It'll be on description, but you can see the area just at the bottom of the barn is a decking
area that's not all a raised patio area that's not there currently.
Elevation form, you can see sort of works happening to that lean -to, putting things
the glazed door for access on the roadside elevation and then conversion of the other parts.
And then internally the lean -to area is used primarily as a kitchen with internal space on
the ground floor used for the cafe and retail area as well as toilets and facilities. There's an
actual outside area, sort of open area on the decking area, also patio area, and then a covered
area but one that's not going to be closed within the shelter shed. I don't
think we necessarily need to go to the map next so thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:10:34
Councillor David Fowles - 2:10:37
Councillor Fels. Jim could you allow me to ask the case officer a question for
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:10:44
the benefit of members particularly those who didn't go on the site meeting.
Councillor David Fowles - 2:10:49
No. It's about the information we've been given. Well you
We haven't been on a site meeting.
We have.
Not for this.
We have.
Not for this.
We have.
We have.
We have.
We have.
We have.
Okay, all right.
Okay.
There was a site meeting.
.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:12:08
The right one.
Town/Parish Council - 2:12:12
Thank you, chair.
I speak on behalf of Bybury Parish Council as chairman.
We strongly object to this application and I will focus on one overriding issue, Highways
safety. A group called Bybury One has been formed, including senior GCC personnel and
representatives of residents and businesses, to find solutions to the parking and highways
issues Bybury faces as a consequence of overtourism. Two specific areas of highway safety have
been identified. Firstly the coach parking bays next to the Swan Bridge.
Action has now been taken and these have been removed. The second area is
Ablington Lane. The Highways Authority's position is clear. It says the proposal
is served from Ablington Lane. It is not practical to control where the customers
access the cafe through the trout farm, the cafe will probably become a destination in
its own right. Parking demand and additional traffic have not been properly considered.
It concludes there is insufficient information to assess the impact on the local highways
network and recommends refusal.
Ablington Lane is not an urban street designed to absorb more commercial traffic.
It is a narrow rural lane used by residents, agricultural service and emergency vehicles
and pedestrians.
It has no proper pedestrian provision along key sections.
It is already under severe pressure from existing trout farm visitors and wider tourism.
The Parish Council has already stated that the lane is frequently gridlocked, that verges are being eroded, and that there is constant conflict between traffic and pedestrians.
We have also highlighted that the trout farm car parks are often full to overflowing, causing frustration, obstruction and danger for residents and visitors.
A separately accessed cafe and retail unit will attract people in its own right.
It will require servicing and increase pedestrian activity around the lane.
It will increase dwell time with vehicles occupying spaces for longer, more pressure
on car parks and more overspill onto roads and verges.
The report refers to 15 parking spaces being required and the trout farm have a separate
retrospective application for a car park adjacent to Shoecroft barn. Whilst the
Highway Authority is strongly recommending refusal primarily for
safety reasons. Bybury is already struggling under the traffic
consequences of tourism. Please give proper weight to objections of the
authority in the parish council. Please also consider that if this application
is permitted this will completely undermine the work of Bybury 1 by
worsening the situation in this part of the village before overall parking and
highway solutions are identified and implemented. The timing of this and the
retrospective car park application could not be worse. Please refuse it.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:16:00
Town/Parish Council - 2:16:05
Thank you, sir. Thank you very much now. Can I ask mrs. Follett to hold to speak? Thank you
Chair members of the committee
This is not sustainable development. It's not balanced planning
It's another step in the commercial expansion of one business with the cost falling on one small village
The case officer's report gives significant weight to the economic growth.
Of course, rural business matters, but planning policy does not say economics trumps everything
else.
Growth that damages residents' daily lives, highway safety, landscape character and the
environment is not sustainable growth.
That is the flaw at the heart of this recommendation.
The report relies on generic Cotswold tourism benefits, but gives too little weight to specific local harm.
There's no local evidence that Bybury needs another café, that residents will benefit, or that the village can absorb further visitor pressure.
There are already multiple food and drink venues within the trout farm and the village.
Since the latest cafe opened, one existing business has reported a 15 % drop in sales.
That is real -world evidence that demand is already being met.
Policy EC10 requires an identified need not already met by existing facilities.
That test is not met.
The proposal is generating more demand in a village already beyond capacity.
The report accepts that Bybury is already under intense tourism pressure.
It accepts over a hundred objections,
parish council objection, Gloucestershire highways objection,
and that this is a sensitive site beside the River Colne
within the Cotswold National Landscape and a conservation area.
And yet, astonishingly, it recommends approval.
Why?
Why?
Because it assumes that the cafe will mostly serve existing visitors.
It assumes longer visitor stays are beneficial.
It assumes that the car park and infrastructure can absorb the impact.
Assumptions are not evidence.
There is also a serious contradiction.
Paragraph 10 .24 says a pedestrian route has now been provided.
Yes, there is a route, a dirt track to the trout farm and the applicant has
confirmed onward access to the village is only by paying an entrance fee into
the farm. Everyone else must walk along Ablington Lane which is inherently
unsafe and dangerous. Even drainage beside the River Cole is still being
taken largely on trust. Only last week untreated sewage was identified entering
the River Cole from the trout farm site. That is the reality of existing pressure
on infrastructure. Sorry I haven't quite finished. This application does not manage tourism. It intensifies it.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:19:28
Please refuse it. That's fine. Thank you very much. Would you like to return to
receipts. Thank you. Now, Councillor Fowles, you can have 10 minutes to speak on both
applications and you can raise the question that you have.
I'm allowed to raise the question before I speak.
Well, maybe you could incorporate the...
If I was here, I would be asking the question to the member of the committee.
Well, you're not allowed to ask the questions to the members of the committee because you've
declared...
It's two points of clarification.
I will ask the legal officer.
Legal Services - 2:20:04
After you have declared an interest you wouldn't have been able to take part in the debate,
however I presume you can raise those...
I don't want you to take part in it, I want to clarify two things.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:20:15
Do it in your statement.
You can certainly raise them and they may be addressed by the officer.
Include them in your statement.
Indeed.
So you've got ten minutes and then we'll excuse you from the room.
Public Speaker - 2:20:31
Thank you, Chairman.
I've got two distinct presentations.
One is on the full application.
I'll then stop and then talk about the second application.
The question I wanted to ask is to make sure that following on from the objector that you
highlight when you look at the presentation, this issue of the pedestrian access, because
the photographs are not clear and neither is the map.
There is no pedestrian access into the centre of the village, which I think is a major issue.
The other question I wanted to ask is, I thought there were going to be some supplementary papers,
which I've got a copy of as the ward member.
Okay, all right. Good afternoon, members.
Before I speak as the ward member, I just want to confirm that obviously when I finish this presentation,
I will leave and not take part in the debate because I'm not able to approach this application with an open mind.
and would vote against the application and strongly support the village view and the view of the parish council.
Secondly, if you look on page 1, there's a reference to the reason why this application was brought to the committee
and that it was not called in by the ward member.
I did indeed want to call it in and I missed the deadline, although I'd just like to highlight that in my experience,
this is the first time I've seen an application that's actually been brought in by the committee,
the review panel rather than the ward member because the review panel is very concerned about the
concerns raised by the objectors and in particular the statutory consultee, and I've never seen an application where
highways have written so strongly about an application and I share those concerns.
As you've heard the report talks about supporting the local economy with yet another cafe.
The trout farm already has extensive catering facilities in it and it also has an extant permission for a new cafe.
So here they are wanting to make another application for another cafe.
There are also several other venues in the village including a newly opened cafe called Number 11.
All of which are wonderful and if you get the chance to go to Bybury on a quiet day,
I urge you to go and try some of those.
But on a day when there aren't tourists, if you can find one.
The report states that the cafe is granted will mostly serve existing visitors and yet it is clear from the report and the site visit that this cafe would create additional visitors to the village.
As you have heard from the Chairman, vehicular access to this site is restricted to the narrow Ablington Lane, which is a single lane with ad hoc, insufficient passing bays.
The road is frequently gridlocked and as you saw the members of the site panel we saw a coach reversing down this lane
You'd have thought we'd organise that but we didn't that was just what happens every day in Bybury
There are coaches cars agricultural vehicles trade vehicles cyclists and pedestrians all jostling to get up this lane
And it is an accident waiting to happen
Well, this is an application to convert a traditional stone threshing barn highways have expressed concerns and stated
that it is not practical to control the traffic and it will become a destination in its own
right and that parking demand and initial traffic have not been properly considered.
This application makes provision only for 15 car parking spaces, which is totally inadequate.
In my opinion, you can't look at this application in isolation from the other application for
a car park because highways have objected to this application but they have strongly
objected to the other application.
Contained in this report on page 194 is a list of the objections raised by 102 third -party
objectors. But you have to note that there are no letters of support. Moreover, given
the importance of this application to Bybury and in particular Trout Farm, I am staggered
that neither the applicant nor the agent nor any supporter is here today to justify their
case. It is all reliant upon the Parish Council and the objectors.
Detailed in pages 188 to 190 is a breakdown of the planning history on this site.
This site already has permission to be used as accommodation and storage.
In 2021, the applicant put in and then withdrew an application to convert it to an events venue.
Similarly, in 2025, a previous application to convert the barn into a café was withdrawn.
On a much more positive note, however, in 2022 an application to convert the barn into
five holiday lets was presented and granted.
And the community and I feel very strongly that if the building is going to be used for
anything, some modest holiday accommodation would be a very useful addition to the site
and would have minimal impact on footpaths, highway safety and car parking.
Lastly, and most importantly, unlike many other communities in our district, when you
get an application from a business and then you find yourselves having to
liaise between the views of a parish council, residents, visitors and business
owners. Bybury is unique because it actually has an organisation that's been
set up that you've heard earlier called Bybury One. This was done in partnership
with GCC and close liaison with the parish council, the district council,
Cotswold tourism, the police, Bybury Heritage and business owners. This group
initially been looking at car parking and coaches as you've heard from the
Chairman but it's in the process of broadening its remit to include tourism.
The applicant ironically is fully engaged in this Bybury One initiative
and looking at the future needs of the village and in this context the
application is at best premature but in reality wholly inappropriate for the
needs of this village. Members in summary for all the reasons stated by the
and the objectors, I would like to request that you
refreeze this application.
Thank you, Chum.
Yes, I am.
Okay, fine.
I'll say good afternoon again.
As I've previously stated, I'm very grateful to the
review panel that's called this application in and in
reference to listed building consent.
Often when we look at listed building consent,
after a full planning application, it's almost done on the nod.
Whereas today, I'm delighted to see that we've actually got someone who's going to speak about listed buildings in relation to
Bybury.
Shoecroft Barn is a grade 2 listed building and we have to have special regard to the desirability of preserving and enhancing this building.
It's setting and any special features in accordance with section 16 of the Planning Act 1990.
Section 16 of the MPPF further states that local authorities should take account of putting
heritage assets to viable uses consistent with their conservation, their positive contribution
that conservation of heritage assets can make to a sustainable community, including their
economic vitality and the desirability of a new development, to make a contribution
to the local character and distinctiveness.
Paragraph 212 states that great weight should be given to the assets, conservation.
Paragraph 213 states that any harm to or loss of significance through alteration should
require clear and convincing justification.
Paragraph 215 states that where less substantial harm should occur to the designated heritage
Asher, this harm should be weighed against the public benefit of the proposed building.
I would argue very strongly from what you've read and what you've heard so far that the
application to convert this beautiful stone threshing barn into a café is totally contrary
to policy.
Bybury is an internationally renowned cultural heritage tourist attraction. The community
is working very closely together in order to protect this attraction both for today
and for future generations. Shoecroft Barne has to be seen not just in its own right but
as part of the overall offer of the heritage of Bybury. The creation of Bybury Heritage,
chaired by Michelle Holt, who is going to come and speak to you a little bit later on,
is a critical step in protecting and enhancing Bibery's unique heritage.
And I would urge you, when you come to look at the listed building consent,
I would like to endorse totally what Michelle is going to tell you.
And hopefully we will reach a conclusion where we can protect the heritage of Bibery,
both for the residents and visitors, for now and for the future.
Thank you very much, Jem.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:29:21
Thank you very much. Do you want to leave now? Yes I think so. Yes we're going to
move on to the site inspection briefing but I think probably you don't
need to be here for that. I think it's better if he leaves the chamber don't
you? Yes.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:29:58
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:30:05
Yes, can you, uh, quietly please, um, Harrison is going to clarify a point about the review
panel. I just wanted to clarify a point, um, Councillor
Paz in his speech there has suggested that the review panel called this application to
planning committee. I understand what Councillor Paz is saying, but effectively I called the
application to the review panel who then reviews and accepted the call and
request. For a bit of clarity, we had given, Councillor Fowle has given strong
indication that he intended to call the application to committee but obviously
unfortunately because of his accident wasn't able to follow the formal process
and do that in writing. As a result of that indication, the level of obviously
public interest and the highways comments, there's some power within the
scheme of delegation for me to refer applications to the review panel which
we then reviewed. I understand what Councillor Fowle was saying but I just thought as a
clarification I should just make that clear that the review panel, given that obviously
Councillor Neill and Councillor Watson are on that panel, didn't themselves call it in, they accepted my
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:30:55
calling so I just thought we can carry on after that. Thanks. Thank you very much for clarifying that
position. Can you remind me if you came to the site inspection briefing?
Great, so can I ask you just briefly to say what you thought about the site inspection briefing?
Can you please limit what you say to a factual observation, what you saw, not your opinion?
Okay, thank you.
Councillor Julia Judd - 2:31:22
I shall snip you off if you start bringing in opinions, okay?
Well, you know me, I'm very succinct anyway.
It was a dry day, slightly confusing to get your head round at the time
because it is a bit of a muddle, the whole thing.
But the thing that really struck me is the fact you cannot,
there's this inviting sort of footpath you think is going to go into the village and
you go down this footpath, it's quite wide, you can walk to a breast, and then you get
round a corner and then it runs out. It runs out at the most narrow part of the road and
on top of that there's almost a dog leg of a corner where it's incredibly narrow and
you get cars coming, in my opinion, quite fast both ways and then you get to the end
and then we were nearly run over by a double -decker coach with signs on it saying,
the driver cannot see you if you cannot see the mirrors. I couldn't see the mirrors,
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:32:22
nor could the rest of us. It was odd. Thank you. Councillor Vann.
Councillor Michael Vann - 2:32:25
My recollection is precisely the same as Councillor Judd's.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:32:34
We all narrowly avoided being run over it sounds like.
Councillor Inge.
Councillor Nikki Ind - 2:32:38
Just to add to that I left, I was the first one to leave.
I drove very carefully down round that corner,
met a vehicle and reversed back up the lane in order to allow that parking in for us to pass each other.
And the coach which shouldn't have been parked in front of the hotel,
hotel which had almost run us over was still there. Yeah, so dangerous.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:33:05
Councillor Julia Judd - 2:33:08
Quick, yes. I just remembered another thing. Our site meeting was at 10 o 'clock on a Wednesday
morning. The car park was full and the cars were already coming backwards and forwards.
There was no re, there was no occasion. This was extraordinary. 10 o 'clock on a Wednesday
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:33:25
Councillor Nick Bridges - 2:33:29
morning. Midweek. Councillor Bridges. As someone said this there are car parks
there but we're not supposed to be using them which is kind of curious and the
official car park which as it was full but actually they could have fit an
extra three cars in if it had been done properly. Very strange that little semi
pathway other side because it was up very uneven you couldn't actually get a
chair along it for example and then it goes very narrow at that dogleg as you
said so that particular way into the village didn't strike me as being great
they really ought to do something about the sidewalk or an alternative way going
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:34:19
through the track park but yeah it's not great thank you you're verging on an
Councillor Nikki Ind - 2:34:27
there Councillor Bridges. Councillor in to clarify and when Councillor
Bridges is talking about the car park being full I think he's talking about
the first car park on the left -hand side the official track car park the car park
up by the pumping station or whatever is on opposite the barn wasn't full but
there was lots of confusion because we were a parking where we isn't an
official car park and by the time we'd walked down the lane it was full of
people who shouldn't have been parked there so it's quite a confusing area but
I think when Councillor Bridges talks about a full car park he's talking about
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:35:08
the first car park. Thank you very much. I say I would endorse what people said
that it is confusing whether with the footpath that seems to promise that
you can walk nicely down into the town and then you can't and there is this
difficult bend. People haven't commented on the barn itself. I don't know whether
we should do that now or wait until they're listed building.
It's relevant.
Yeah, so the the barn itself in many ways has been converted in a very
unsympathetic way. I mean it's got modern sort of wooden framed windows and then
as we saw in the picture there there's been the roof the sloping roof has been
cut into to make balconies and there's a huge glass front at the beginning.
On the riverside to allow you to view I suppose, yes, so the barn itself has been unsympathetically
converted so it would be possible to do something to that barn to improve the look of the building
and to make it much more back to its sort of historical appearance, I would have thought.
Yes, so a lot of the significance of the listed building I would have thought had been damaged
already by the unsympathetic conversions which have taken place. I think that's all I wanted
to say about that. So now nobody else was on the SIB, were they? No. So we'll move on to questions.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 2:36:42
questions. Thanks. Thank you. We know that there is a retrospective
car park which we see an application for in 2026. Is that because of an enforcement case
and that's because they have been advised to put in an application for it? It sounds
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:37:06
bit like it sounds a bit like Clarkson's farm I hate to mention that. Enforcement
matters are confidential so I wouldn't be able to disclose I'm not aware of any
Councillor Juliet Layton - 2:37:14
enforcement investigation that's prompted that but I wouldn't be able to
share it even if I did. A car park arrived, planning Commission arrived
followed by another Planning Commission for having a thank you I just wanted to
Thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:37:30
Any other questions?
Councillor Paul Evans - 2:37:33
Councillor Evans, thanks.
I note that highways have put an objection.
Have we got their objection in the pack anywhere at all?
In detail.
I couldn't find it.
Page 206? Oh no, sorry.
Page 209.
209. Thank you.
Thank you, Julia. Right.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:37:56
Did you have a further question or are you just going to have a look?
He didn't have a look.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
Councillor Conlon.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:38:07
Thank you, Chair.
I do recall going on a site visit for a previous trout farm application, which I think was
related to the age of the trout that were being bred there.
I do remember that we walked around the site on a relatively quiet day.
But what I, and I know you, I'm pretty certain you're supposed to pay to park in their car
park.
Can I just ask, is that still the case?
Or is they, what we think of their car park on their side of the road with rather poor
management where you could have got more cars in, as you mentioned.
But from there, under this proposal, you would park in one of the car parks and you would
walk into the trout farm you'd have to pay to get in is that right?
Where I mean I can't remember what there's a mention here from the reason I'm asking the question is well
I'm sure the objective said that you can't get out into the centre of the village without paying which seemed a bit confusing
So there's the main car park that was mentioned earlier by council and bridges
Officer - 2:39:19
and that's all so it's the main sort of I call it the main car park it's one
that's historically been associated with the trout farm which is further along
the road from where the site is and that's also where the previous cafe that
was approved is located or is located adjacent to the car parks that we're
sort of more interested with in terms of this application the one to the north is
the one that is sort of regularised and the one that's just to the west is the
that's unregulated. In terms of access from these into the cafe, so they
haven't said the cafe, in fact they've indicated the cafe would be for use of
people both visiting the trout farm and if they're just going into the main part
of Bybury. So realistically if you were parking in that northern car park you'd
cross the road and then walk into the cafe directly. If you then wanted to go
into the centre of Bybury you could walk along a section that takes you sort of
inside the trout farm, but then you would have to go back out and walk along the roadside
to get into the main part of the village. That is actually the existing situation, whether
or not the cafe is there or otherwise. So currently that is what people can also do,
which is sort of, they go in, they pay for parking. I'm not actually sure what the parking
charges for that main car park. The overflow car park is eight pounds a day currently,
or last time I was there, so Wednesday. And so you'd park there and then you could do
that little loop in and then you'd be going back out to the main onto the road
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:40:49
for that sort of corner section. I can't ask the objectors obviously wouldn't be
right but the next question I've got thinking about this is is there a belief
by the any is it actually the belief of objectors is it the belief of the highway
authority that this cafe I say on its own the existence of this cafe would
actually generate more traffic than is already going there.
Given the significant number of other cafes closer to the main attractions, we can call
that, referring to Arlington Row and so on, this cafe would be quite remote from that
and it seemed unlikely to me that anybody would drive their car, given the problems
with parking, to that particular area just to have a coffee.
But is it the case that analysis or belief or argument shows that this cafe on its own
would generate traffic?
Officer - 2:41:47
Essentially this is where my opinion differs to the objections raised.
The objections raised are very much concerned that it will generate additional traffic movements
and also will prolong the amount of time people spend in Bybury and causing additional parking
concerns.
My view is more that there is an library as we said it's a very busy very touristy
area. People come to Bybury to visit Bybury. The car park just indicated to
the north is where most people who are visiting Bybury they're coming by car
end up parking but there's no other dedicated car parking spaces along the
road but they could equally go to the cafes the main part the village. So to me
you've got most people already coming to that northern car park and there's a
to me it doesn't generate the additional, or is unlikely to generate significant additional traffic movements
because that's where people are already, and in the same way that when people are walking into the main centre of Vibray
that they're already making that walk, this is just essentially a stop along the way.
But obviously that's not the opinion of objectors.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:42:53
Which is considered more sustainable and less dangerous?
Cars coming and spending half an hour and having a cup of coffee or cars coming and
spending three hours wandering around the village taking photographs like mad around
Arlington row and not moving their car for three hours?
Does the highway authority have any apparent preferences here?
do they prefer long stays because there's less movement as a result,
although then there'll be more cars that can't park as a result.
I'm trying to work out whether it really matters.
Officer - 2:43:28
I'm struggling to actually answer that question as an exact end of what highways want.
Generally we look for longer stay tourism,
but generally that's also considered in days rather than necessarily a couple more hours.
Realistically, if people are coming and they're staying for three hours
or if they're coming for one hour, they'd have made that traffic movement either way.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:43:51
Councillor Paul Evans - 2:43:53
Councillor Evans.
I've now had the opportunity to read 10 .74.
It seems quite light in the Highway Authority's objections
in that they say there's concerns regarding the potential for the cafe to become a destination.
Has that been quantified at all?
Is there any data from the applicant or any other source that forecasts what cafe traffic might be and
Officer - 2:44:25
Therefore what increased traffic volume there might be?
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:44:28
Short the answer is no
Councillor Paul Evans - 2:44:30
Can't sorry sorry, I'm following that up
There hasn't been a formal traffic impact assessment. That's also correct
The highways pointed to that. So not as part of this application. There's been
reference made to the other application for the extension of the other car park
so the more recent one, the one currently being exhibited, there is traffic information submitted
as part of that one but obviously that's not really part of our considerations.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:44:57
Okay. Thank you. Councillor Inge did you want to say something? It was actually about, I'm
really disappointed if there's, if that there is no form water, it was about the
formal traffic assess impact assessment would we not expect given the situation
in bybury will be not have expected to receive a formal traffic impact
assessment from the applicant or is that not required so additional information
was requested but we didn't at the end consider it justified to require it
because of the presumption essentially that people are you know they're the
site is adjacent to an existing car park and the provision is there much as in
they've had additional cafes in the centre of by brain with additional with
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:45:50
the existing on -street parking. Sorry I wanted to clarify something and we've
been talking about objections from highways but in 10 .77 it says in the
absence of clear evidence from the highways authority demonstrating the
proposal would result in an unacceptable impact on high -rise safety etc etc it's
not considered that the application could reasonably refused on high -risk
grounds is it so is there that I'm assuming that that means that there
Officer - 2:46:21
isn't actually an objection from highways is that correct
Officer - 2:46:25
sorry so they have recommended refu so highways recommended refuse so they have
objected to it. This is your... Yeah, so their objection essentially it raised
concerns but it didn't break down exactly what those concerns were in
terms of they thought it was going to generate X amount of traffic and that
this would be problematic. It raised it more as a further consideration,
further information is required so it's more of a lack of information and so it
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:46:55
is my assessment within 7 .7. Okay so that's where you put this a lack of
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:47:01
clear evidence from highways. Okay, thank you very much.
Councillor Coleman.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:47:04
Is there any way of finding out what the accident record is for the last 5, 10, 20 years
along that lane?
My impression is that speeds are so slow that although you get scared, you don't get hit very often.
Officer - 2:47:23
I haven't been supplied with any of that information.
there were conversations with the parish council who identified several near misses. I think someone might have been
hit but possibly not particularly injured. I can't remember, it was a while ago now and I can't remember the exact details
but there could be a more than near miss, but I don't think necessarily, you know, it's not a fatality but
minimal injury.
And that was in the centre part where they're sort of walking with the bridge I believe.
But unfortunately that's me trying to recall the conversation from several months ago.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:47:53
Probably worth it, GCC highways would have access to that data but they haven't obviously
provided anything quantitative or substantial as part of the application. It's always, accident
report data is always an interesting one because obviously there's often found to be people
are not always open to reporting accidents because there's concern it'll impact their
insurance and other things. So it's a useful data source but it's one of those things where
it's part of, it needs to be used as part of a bigger picture, but GCC highways record data,
they have spoken to them about length of times, but their response to us on this application is
sort of about two paragraphs, it's sort of probably would have fit on two eight four sides of paper,
on one eight four side of paper, they haven't had the Gloucestershire County Council logo at the top,
so it's not a particularly substantial response in that sense, it doesn't go into any sort of
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:48:46
that's a breakdown of that information. If there's no further questions we'll move on to
Councillor Julia Judd - 2:48:55
comments. Thank you. Councillor Jattup. I do chair thank you very much. I've got a few but
I'll try and be succinct. One of the biggest questions I have in the back of
my mind why bribery? Why is bribery so popular? Apparently it's because
Emperor Hirohito thought it was some pilgrimage site for him, but it's now popular with other
people.
I don't understand it.
There are equally beautiful places in the Cotswolds.
The other thing, I just wonder if, this is just a question of common sense, surely.
If highways have formed an objection, you don't need evidence.
We had the evidence on our site visit.
I mean, nearly getting run over by a lorry at 10 o 'clock.
Well, by that stage it was more like 11 o 'clock in the morning.
On a Wednesday, not in the holidays, this is a quiet time of year.
And clearly there isn't provision enough for parking
because the car park, the bottom car park was already full
and then the car park that we weren't meant to be using was also full by the time we left at 11 o 'clock.
So I was to think it's likely that the top car park would be full by 2 o 'clock.
It's just the barn desperately needs some attention.
I totally agree with Councillor Neill that it's been unsympathetically treated.
But I just also feel that there isn't much goodwill from the applicant to make people
pay to get to the village through the trout farm. There is, there seemed to be on the
very sharp corner, there seemed to be a bit of dead man's land there. I mean, I don't
know what the rules would be, but that would be, that corner, it would be the absolute
bottleneck where Councillor Ind got stuck. And yet on the other side of that it's just
a bit of scrub land. I just think a more creative solution to this application could be made.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:51:15
Just going to jump in. Just to clarify, Councillor Judd, we would want some form of evidence
supporting any decision we make whose planning is very evidence based. We had a series of
last year, I think it was four from the office of my head, where we refused on highways grounds
based on highways objections and they were all allowed because of a lack of...
No, it was mine.
Yeah, it was unsubstantiated evidence. I'm not saying that that doesn't, you know, your
concerns aren't therefore valid, but I think a lack of... Refusing on highway safety issues
where we haven't got evidence to support that would be of concern. If members don't feel
there's enough evidence in front of them to... Well, I'd refer you to paragraphs 115 and
almost six of the MPPF.
If you don't have sufficient evidence to satisfy you
that the tests and the MPPF have been met,
the Highways Authority effectively in their statement
said that insufficient information is available
to enable them to consider the impact of those developments.
You could basically allow insufficient information
and refusal reason if that were where you would
mind to state this.
But I just, I guess, urge caution if we're sort of
refusing on highway safety based on we don't need evidence,
we, you know, it's a perceived impact.
I think we do need some.
Where does that evidence have to come from?
could it come from by everyone?
To some extent it can come from anyone. You know, you're weighing evidence.
If the applicant submits evidence on one hand and the highways authority submits evidence for a third party,
the planning role is then to weigh up that evidence and reach informed conclusion.
So it's really starting from the us and the applicant
to submit that evidence for us to then sort of peer review.
but so effectively there is an option to refuse it that they haven't submitted
that evidence to to satisfy the tests and the policy but I'd be yeah I just be
cautious of saying that we don't need evidence we can take a sort of
common -sense approach because unfortunately that's really how planning works.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:53:04
Councillor Paul Evans - 2:53:06
Councillor Evans. Yeah it feels to me that we don't have the evidence here I
I think the highway authority say there is an absence of a formal traffic impact assessment.
And I wonder whether that would be helpful in us coming to a evidence -based conclusion
as to whether the impact of this cafe would in fact make a bad situation even worse.
So I might be minded to request some form of traffic impact assessment be conducted
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:53:43
before this was approved. So are you suggesting that we defer the application
to get that information? I'm asking Harrison.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:53:53
No effect at all. The applications before us we should be determining applications
in a timely manner if we feel that effectively there is concern this
development could generate a level of additional trips and level of transport activity that we
don't fully understand that is grounds for a refusal reason and we should, in my view, we
should proceed to determine that application. We could defer it, go back to the applicant,
not hear anything and then we bring it back for the exact same reasons in a month. I know sometimes
we'd like to work proactively with the applicant but I don't know how long exactly this application
has been open for but the case officer has been in that dialogue. These comments from highways have
been on the file for months if not longer. So I think for me those opportunities have
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:54:41
been there not taken this is the position we're currently in.
Thank you Councillor Layton you've been very patient.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 2:54:46
One thing before before Heurita said anything William Morris said it was the most beautiful
village in England and that was particularly about Arlington Row and then the Japanese
come because their emperor said if God had a second home it would be here, something
like that.
But, Bybury is not just a trout farm, which is what it feels like this application is
about, the trout farm is the pinnacle of Bybury, which it certainly isn't.
What I was wondering though, trying to look for policies, because we all know about the
difficulties in Biber, we talk about it regularly in council, about some of our villages that
are oversubscribed with tourists.
And Biber is one of them and the traffic is one of them that we talk about.
Cotswolds tourism is actively trying to divert people to other places, other villages in
and around the Cotswolds that are equally beautiful but with that quite so
much traffic. EC1E, I've lost it now because I'm talking, I've forgotten where it is.
What page is that on? It's about tourism, no employment, employment, I'm really
Sorry, because I thought I had the page and I've lost it.
Darn it.
You wrote this.
296.
196.
Brilliant. I was not far enough.
It says, E, supports sustainable tourism in ways that enables the district
to attract higher numbers of long stay visitors.
Well, I don't think this application fits that.
could we not use that as you know I think the weight is that we don't want
longer you know we don't want more visitors in Bybury because they're
oversubscribed and long stays not I mean oh it's only a coffee not rather than I
think that's sort of what I'm gonna get to is yes we know we're aware there's
wider issues in Bybury but we do need to bring this back to this development
which is a single relatively modest sized cafe with the retail and cinema
retail element and I guess the question is do we consider that that use would
generate so many additional visitors to the site that it would then fail that
policy I'm not saying it doesn't but I think that's the question we've been
asked ourselves and given sailing as Amy just pointed out there was also recently
permission for another cafe which we had effectively be imposing and if we were
to permit it imposing an obligation for a basically a this or that so there would
be they could go ahead and build a cafe anyway this is an alternative cafe which
condition. So the recommendation is one that's to permit subjects to secure a
legal agreement. That legal agreement would relate to the application that
was permitted in about 2023 which was for a cafe and gift shop or at next to
the main car park so the one further into bribery so it is slightly smaller
but there is one permitted next to that car park and essentially my
Officer - 2:58:17
recommendation has been that if you do permit this one that we put a legal
agreement to say that you can only do one or the other you can't do both so
it's just to bear that in mind when you're thinking to the traffic
Officer - 2:58:31
generation that there is that potential other car park sorry other cafe no the
Councillor Juliet Layton - 2:58:39
yeah that cafe hasn't been constructed its proposal that's been approved um can
I am looking for something here, because I don't approve of this. I would like to go
against. But we have got to find something to put this on. We have got a retrospective
car park application. If they didn't have the car park, which is clearly there already,
would they be going ahead with the cafe? Could we not make the cafe wait until we've got an idea of what's going to happen with this retrospective application for a car park?
Because this is making this whole trout farm bigger and making it the pinnacle again.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:59:27
I'd need to bring you back to what is the planning harm that we identify with this proposal.
If you identify planning harm here, then potentially you've...
I think we just need to... This is the application that's in front of us,
and we need to decide if it's in its own right is harmful or not.
If it is harmful, then I guess you can have those wider conversations.
But without identifying that harm, it's hard to really...
But I think so we say the recommendation for you by the case officers
If members if you can maybe let me know what your primary concerns are we can sort of then help you out
I think I do need to hear from you what the concerns are
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:00:07
Counsellor int
Councillor Nikki Ind - 3:00:11
Thank you, and I
Was I was thinking when we're thinking about things I'd written down great weight given to the highways
I think that has been almost quashed.
That bothers me.
I suppose I am thinking if this barn was somewhere not up this lane, would it be okay?
It seems to me to all centre around this little lane, the fact that you can't move on it,
and you know would would we be having this conversation I suppose over I am
would we be having this conversation if it was a decent road and it was on the
side of a decent road with good access and that's what that's where the
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:01:00
challenge I that's where I see the challenges for us
Councillor Paul Evans - 3:01:03
Council Evans thank you it seems to me that I don't feel that I have enough
information looking at this application in and of itself as to understand whether
the traffic situation would become worse and it is the absence of
information for me that would lead me to want to decline to refuse this and
until we have that traffic in we know it's bad how much worse is it going to
be if the answer is none or very limited then I think that that's a wider
question about by beer and its tourism if on the other hand the traffic flow
impact comes back and says there's going to be an extra hundred cars going up and
down that a day I think that's specific to that application so I'm in a position
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:01:52
where I just don't have the information to be able to to approve this I'd say
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 3:01:56
Councillor Coleman I was going to ask one of those questions which I like
which says would the officer Harrison this is Billy agree with me that over
the last 10 -12 years we have had three phases, distinct phases of highway advice. In the
early days, in my experience from 2011 I think it was, if you came to planning committee,
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:02:24
highways never came and didn't comment on anything that wasn't big.
Is this actually relevant to this application?
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 3:02:30
Would you agree that there was then a middle phase where we had an officer from the county
Council, possibly not directly employed, who came and treated us like adults and we got
really good and insightful highway advice.
And then about three years ago, and Andrew, your Planning Officer, pointed this out to
me, we started to get advice from the County Council's Highway Department that flicked,
that was now often suggesting refusal but on incredibly unsustainable grounds.
and I was disappointed that I couldn't get refusals at this committee, as you might remember,
because the highways evidence can be relied upon.
So given that's what it is, would you agree with me that if we were to refuse on highway
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:03:18
grounds and lose at appeal, we're unlikely to have to pay costs?
I think, I don't know if that's particularly relevant to this.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 3:03:25
There was a lot in there. I wasn't here for a significant part of that so I can't
speak to previous highways authority advice. Obviously as I mentioned earlier
we did have that string of poor appeals which did relate to
Unsubstantiated Highways comments. A couple of those did result in costs. To
some extent that doesn't make any difference. No, ultimately if effectively if I sort of
summarise what Councillor Evans has sort of suggested is effectively this
development has the potential to increase the number of trip generations
down that road it could potentially be unsuitable and we do not have
sufficient information to make an assessment as to whether or not it would
have a severe impact, an unacceptable impact on the highway on highway
safety and a severe impact on the, there's another test, but a severe
impact on the highway's network effectively. That can be a refusal isn't it?
you wanted to go down that route. I think the problem we've had in the past is where
you refuse it saying this will have a negative impact or a severe impact on highway safety
and we don't have the evidence to back that up. Having insufficient evidence is a different
sort of assessment. I think that's the key, it's the nuance of the refusal reason that's
Councillor Paul Evans - 3:04:36
critical in my view if that's through we're going down.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:04:37
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:04:40
Councillor Michael Vann - 3:04:43
Councillor Layton. Councillor Bann, you haven't spoken yet.
The 423, page 190, planning application, the one people have been talking about before,
the retrospective car park one.
I simply cannot understand how,
this is a recent planning application
and I've been looking at it,
why we have to consider this one before that is dealt with.
I simply can't follow that.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:05:28
Councillor Evans, are you asking that as a question or just making a statement?
Just making a statement.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 3:05:37
I think because one was submitted nearly two years past the other and we've reached a point where,
oh no, a year before, sorry, I won't exaggerate, but it was submitted earlier, it's reached a point
where, as I say, either negotiations have reached a point where we can't go any further or we've
got an excerpt scheme that the case officer felt was acceptable. So as I say, I would bring back,
We are recommending, the case officer is recommending permission here.
Obviously again, if members feel that there is concern that the wider issues and again this development might have a harmful impact,
then that's a potential refusal reason, but you know that's a 2026 application,
so 2035 fundamentally we are taking them in the order they've come at the time that they're ready to come,
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:06:18
Councillor Paul Evans - 3:06:20
or we consider them ready to come.
Councillor Evans?
To Harrison's point, it is the absence of evidence rather than evidence that says there's no impact.
That is my concern. And I do appreciate all the work that's gone into this by officers to put this together and it's clearly extensive.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:06:45
But as I say, it's that absence of evidence that is the challenge I have here.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 3:06:49
Councillor Layton. Is there any merit in deferring this on further evidence from
highways and also maybe air quality assessment for all the traffic that sits
and hangs around in those lanes waiting to get up and down to a car park that
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 3:07:14
hasn't got planning permission yet? Is that too tenuous to consider?
Ultimately, you're the decision makers. If you feel you want to defer the application
and effectively instruct officers to take it away and try and engage with the applicants
further, that is a decision you're able to make. My advice to you would be the risk of
appealing non -determination. If ultimately they decide they've reached a point where
they feel the application is acceptable, we might not bring it back to committee and they
might have put on non -determination. Again, that's a risk if members choose is worth taking.
if we feel it's worth having another go at this.
That, you know, ultimately, the application is for you
to determine, but my only, you know, thing I'd note there is
that risk of non -determination appeal.
But that, it's, there's something to say.
We have bought the application before you because we feel
that it's reached a point where we can recommend permission.
Obviously, members are going to take a different view on that,
and whilst I can steer you, I can't sort
of tell you what to do.
If you would like to tell me you'd like to defer it,
and that's to go away, we can give it a go.
if you feel it's unacceptable and there's a refusal reason in there you
can recommend refusal or say you can go with officer recommendation and add
conditions if you feel a condition could address it but our recommendation to you
is to permit with conditions yeah you have a legal agreement and if you want
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:08:30
to take a different view we can work that out.
Councillor Michael Vann - 3:08:32
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:08:40
Councillor Vann. Therefore with the greatest regret I propose that we follow
Councillor Paul Evans - 3:08:48
the advice of the planners. Thank you. Is there a condition that we could attach to
Councillor Paul Evans - 3:08:58
Officer - 3:09:01
obtain a traffic impact assessment for this? No. I wouldn't have thought it'd be
very reasonable either the transport implications are such that they justify
refusal, there's lack of information to justify refusal, it would be very awkward
if we already if we approved it subject to a pre -commencement condition for a
traffic survey and like to then if that information came in what would
trigger our refusal of that prior commencement condition and feel that was
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:09:25
reasonable. Can I make a comment? Oh sorry did you want to say something else? No no no
Councillor Paul Evans - 3:09:31
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:09:33
thank you for that clarification I was just trying to find a kind of halfway house to
try and do with this without? So my comment is that about the permission
that's in existence for the cafe, you know there's already permission for an
existing cafe adjacent to the lower car park, if the retrospective
permission for the Shuecroft car park is allowed and the cafe is not opposite but
down the road, the situation could be worse because you could have people
parking in the Shoecroft car park and then walking down the road towards the
lower car park where there is no reason why they can't put up the existing
cafe because they've got permission for that so I'm just throwing that out there
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:10:22
for consideration. Does anyone else have any comments? Otherwise Councillor van
has said that we should accept the officers recommendation. Do we have a
Councillor Paul Evans - 3:10:37
seconder for that proposal. But I have a comment. Yes, but we need to.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:10:38
Councillor Paul Evans - 3:10:41
Sorry? I'll second it so we can debate. So I think I heard that there was a this was
an either or so there is planning permission for this other cafe but it's either that one
or this one. Yeah, to the officers considered that having both of them would be you know
that would be potentially harmful so we'd include an obligation to say that if you implement this
one you can't implement the other one effectively. Okay and where would that decision lie with the
applicant as to which one they chose to implement? Okay right thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:11:22
Sorry we have a proposal from Councillor van to accept the officer's recommendation
seconded by Councillor Coleman unless anybody wants to say anything else we'll
go to the vote on that shall we
.
.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:12:58
We have three in favour, four against one abstention. That is refused. That was a proposal.
That is not accepted. Now we need to move forward to another proposal.
did people yeah
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:13:17
Councillor Coleman is swapping sides now yeah really listens to me I said I was
second in that for debate didn't imply I was going to support it thank you I'm
now proposing that we defer this for one cycle only to extract all the
information we can from the Highways Authority as to understand why they made
the recommendation that they did. They may have some information, they may have some
data and given that road safety is the overwhelming main issue, it's actually when we get to the
listed building it's quite an improvement for the listed building incident. So that
to me is the crucial last chance on this. If we can't extract statistics from the Highways
Authority that make a case for or again must make a case one way or the other for or no
evidence about danger from this proposal then we'll have to take that into
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 3:14:18
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:14:20
consideration when it comes back to us. We now have a proposal to defer and so
do we have a seconder?
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 3:14:26
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:14:26
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:14:30
Councillor Julia Judd - 3:14:36
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:14:37
Councillor Julia Judd - 3:14:38
Yeah sorry chair I second the proposal to defer and get all that information
from highways, but I also suggest that Bybury 1 are allowed to submit to, are they allowed
to? Can they be a consortee please?
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:14:48
I don't think there's going to be a statute of consortee.
Councillor Julia Judd - 3:14:50
We can consult the parish council. We'll have to consult this allocation plan anyway, so
yeah, do our own re -consortation.
But if the Gloucester County highways are already on Bybury 1, can we just remind highways
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:15:07
that by one have data that they might be able to apply.
Councillor Julia Judd - 3:15:09
I don't know that they do.
If any third party would like to submit additional evidence,
they're more, I'm assuming that...
If anybody in Vibra knows anybody else
who's got data on traffic movements in Vibra,
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:15:19
please speak up and let us know.
Councillor Julia Judd - 3:15:21
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:15:22
Can we just jump in and clarify?
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 3:15:24
We mentioned one cycle.
Obviously, I can't guarantee you it'll come back next month.
If we consult highways and they tell us they need six weeks,
it'll take six weeks, but we'll do our best to...
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:15:34
I think it would be bringing it back as expediently as possible effectively.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:15:37
So do we need to clarify the reason with you for the deferral?
Just to get further information on highways grounds?
Is that something you're reconstituting?
Councillor Paul Evans - 3:15:48
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:15:50
Well I think it's to involve the evidence on highways grounds including reconstituting.
I would like to see, I'm not sure how we get it, but I would like to see that quantitative evidence that says this will or will not.
Councillor Paul Evans - 3:16:03
what is the extent of the traffic impact of this cafe because that's the that's
that's effectively the nub of the matter for me do we have the evidence one way
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:16:13
or the other and we don't at the moment so my reason for voting against that
because I don't have the information to work out whether the highway grounds
okay so are we then ready to proceed to the votes that we defer the application
in order to wait further information from highways we're happy with that
that's what we're going to vote for to defer the application awaiting further
information from highways okay.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:17:24
If that's been deferred, is there any point in...
They're different issues, so...
I mean, no one's raised any listed building issues there.
No, no, I think this one would be quite quick.
Just more than my point.
Okay.
Um...
We're now going to move on to the listed building concept,
which is a separate issue,
and it's just in relation to the works on the Shucrof farm.
So, um...
Amy, do you want to give us a further update on that?
Officer - 3:17:59
So for the list of building consent, the same thing applies in regards to the red line needing
to be altered, but otherwise we're just looking at the physical alterations to the building
and the impact on the significance of it.
So I will go through just to remind you in terms of what it currently looks like.
The building and obviously the existing alterations when it was converted to residential or partly
to residential.
and then also just to show the continuous works being proposed now so
I'm sorry to flip through all those which primarily are alterations the main
alterations happen to the lean to which obviously the late tradition which is
considered the significance and then sort of more minor alterations to either
the glazing which again isn't considered relevant and alterations to the single
storey or the lower structure which had been amended from previous applications
to have a very limited impact in the overall fabric.
The roof is being replaced,
but the sort of things like the flooring
is remaining as is.
So, and essentially we didn't identify any harm
from the proposals as part of this.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:19:10
Thank you very much.
Now, I think Councillor Chapman,
you said you didn't want to speak again, didn't you?
But Michelle, you wanted to speak again, didn't you?
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:19:22
So you're primarily going to speak about the list of building, the nature of the
barn itself. So you'll have three minutes again. Got three minutes again.
Yeah.
Objector - 3:19:44
Okay, chair members of the committee, as well as being a resident of Bybury for over 20 years,
I'm also chair of the recently formed Bybury Heritage Charity,
and so this statement concerns the listed building consent. You only have to
drive through Bybury to see how the applicant has treated listed buildings
in the past with illegal awnings banners and signage and the new education venue
that you approved now hosts family parties. Please bear this in mind.
Shoecraft barn is a grade two listed building within the Bybury Conservation
area in one of the most sensitive historic settings in the Cotswolds.
It's not simply a structure, it's part of the village's historic identity.
The test is whether this proposal preserves the building's character, significance and
setting.
It does not.
This proposal introduces a fundamental change from a rural, previously residential building
to a large commercial use, an 118 seat cafe, not a relatively modest cafe as
described by planners, with a commercial kitchen, outdoor activities, servicing
waste, lighting and visitor pressure. Think of a McDonald's or a Gregg's in the
countryside. This is it and ask yourself would you approve it? This is not a minor
adaptation, it's a complete shift in how the building functions, how it is experienced
and how it relates to the setting. A listed building should not be treated as a flexible
commercial unit. Its significance lies in its rural character, historic form and relationship
to the landscape and the river Colne. The officer's report focuses on physical alterations,
materials, links and detailing, but heritage harm is not limited to fabric.
It's about erosion of character and that is what's happening here.
This building is being drawn step by step into a wider commercial visitor use.
Previous permissions for holiday accommodation and other commercial activity have already
begun this process.
This proposal accelerates it significantly.
This is cumulative harm.
Once the character of a listed building is lost through inappropriate use, it cannot
be restored by condition or mitigation.
Members should ask, what is the long -term future of this building?
A rural heritage asset or part of a commercial leisure complex?
National policy requires clear and convincing public benefit to outweigh harm.
There is none.
Bybury does not lack cafe provision. This is not conservation led reuse, it's
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:22:56
Objector - 3:22:58
escalation. Please refuse listed building consent. Thank you very much.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:23:00
So there are no other speakers. Councillor Folles has already made his speech. Would

11 25/02961/LBC - Shoecroft Barn, Ablington, Bibury, Cirencester

anyone like to make... I have any questions about the listed building consent on
this building. Councillor Inge. Thank you chair just I noted that the conservation
officer has made no objections following amendments what sort of amendments for
those do we know? Priorly that related to the lean tube structure regarding the
flooring there were between application this application the previous
application they did also make alterations I believe primarily to the
area also through the patio area. Councillor Conlon. Just to cheque I'm in the right place
chair and I just be certain that the core of the discussion about the listed
building can be found on pages two three three starting at the bottom it's
preceded by general comments paragraph 9 .9 through to paragraph 916. I can't say
it looks that positive positive but I just want to cheque that's where the from
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:24:32
the officer's point of view that's where the nub of the assessment is. Yes it's on
questions
Councillor Juliet Layton - 3:24:37
Councillor Layton yeah, thank you when you turn something into a cafe
You kind of think of teas and coffees and scones
But I suspect this is a very you know we've heard it's going to be a hundred and eighteen seat or whatever
But you know whether you've got ovens on or whether you're frying chips you need
extraction and have we got that detailed on the and I'm really sorry because I I
read the other bits of this and I haven't thoroughly gone through this one
this part of the application have we got any detail about where things are going
to be you know where the extractions are going to be because it's a listed
building it'd be coming out of somewhere which could be could be detrimental to
Officer - 3:25:38
Sorry, just double checking the plans. No, I mean the kitchen area is in that lean to
and it has a hatch but there's no, there isn't any identification of where any flues and
the light cool extraction units would go. But it would be on that, if it's needed, it
Councillor Juliet Layton - 3:25:53
would be on that lean to part of the building. We wouldn't consider that to be detrimental
to the lean to or the fact that it is next to and that you know it's near to
Officer - 3:26:09
a listed building and within sight of it and everything? Essentially because it's
not included on the plans to have any of the extraction units nothing's being
current. Approval now wouldn't approve any of those extract any sort of additions
Councillor Juliet Layton - 3:26:23
for extraction so if they need those we consider those at that time. I'd be
deferring this at the same time because if you've got a cafe you've got you've
got you've got to have all of that you know you need all that information and
along with that how they're going to get rid of all their waste and you know
cafes and kitchens and we're both strict about how food was produced in in the
Cotswolds and everywhere else really in the country mostly but you do need that
information I think and I would radically propose that we deferred to
get that information alongside the highways one then they go hand in hand
Councillor Nikki Ind - 3:27:08
together. Thank you chair yeah I'm in in favour of agreeing and I'm going to agree
with you Juliet what I don't want to see is one of those lovely stainless steel
chimneys right reaching up between the kitchen and what is going to be the back
of that L -shaped open seating area.
So yeah, we wouldn't know what that impact's going to be.
And I don't think I can see, but correct me if not,
I can't see where bin stores are going to be, and in relation,
you know, and all of the, as Juliet said,
all the paraphernalia that goes with a one, I mean,
118 seats is a lot of seats.
And there'll be a lot of stuff that goes along with that.
and understanding where that sits in relation to this heritage asset is really important.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 3:28:11
Again, referring to those paragraphs where the conclusion say considered unreasonable,
considered uncontentious, considered acceptable, can our officer be a bit more precise and
say if any of the changes proposed to this building actually enhance it given
that its sensitivity to change has been reduced in certain areas it says at the
top of the page in other words it's been bashed about so much that we can't edit
it much more as perhaps that's an I'm I wrong in that assessment but are we
actually improving the appearance and the narrative of the building with any
Officer - 3:28:57
these if these changes are allowed I would have gone with it not be an
improvement just I would say not detrimental to the building but not an
improvement to it
essentially neutral yeah
Councillor Juliet Layton - 3:29:15
I was going to add to what I was saying before which was a proposal but can I
Can I do that or you want more questions?
I could put a question mark at the end.
It could raise my voice.
While we're looking at what might go,
you know, the paraphernalia of kitchen things and flues and extraction and everything,
something that we haven't picked up on which an objector mentioned
was the fact that raw sewage had gone into the river from that site.
Now we've got 118, we've got a very large cafe, right?
And we can have a turnover of about,
probably they'll turn a table over about once an hour,
once every hour and a half.
That is a huge volume of people sitting down
and eating and drinking over a day, a week, month, year.
How are they gonna cope with that volume of sewage
and drainage and that sort of thing?
I think we need a bit more detail on that please because if they've had a
Legal Services - 3:30:27
spill already it could be worse by far.
Chair, if I may, I feel that straying into the full element which we've already voted on.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 3:30:40
Is that in relation to the listed building?
I think it might be because they might have to do more digging and making... I don't know.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:31:00
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:31:01
Officer - 3:31:09
Did we have any information about that in particular?
Not about the sewerage leak in terms of what they said they were doing with foul water that was going
I believe they've already connected the building to the mains. Yeah
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:31:20
And
Officer - 3:31:27
That would be adequate to cope with the extra number of people using the toilets with it. What do you think?
Essentially it would be up to the service but so I don't know if it's tens or seven trend there
But it would be for them to ensure that it was sufficient between them and the trout farm
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:31:37
Okay and Councillor Judd.
Councillor Julia Judd - 3:31:42
Well I think I'm just going to go back to what I was saying before is that this barn
needs some love. I mean it's got it's sort of a hodgepodge of windows styles and and
diggy out bits on the top. It looks tired. I actually rather love corrugated iron but
I'm the only person left on the planet that does, but it needs something.
But a cafe in Bybury in a conservation area, a listed building, to me seems,
have we lost, you know, just seems strange.
Councillor Nick Bridges - 3:32:28
What happened when we were there? We noticed that the portaloo was outside.
I'm struggling to find in here what's happening with toilets.
Can I have some clarity on that? Are we still having questions?
I don't think portaloo is...
They're inside.
They're inside? Oh, okay.
Portal is your inside. No, no the toilets are inside. Right? Yeah, but if they can't cope then you might have to lose outside. Oh
Councillor Nick Bridges - 3:32:59
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:33:12
Sorry, do we have a proposal I think I proposed that we defer
To find out about all the paraphernalia from the kitchen, the flues, the extractor fans,
however they deal with the volumes of water really out of the... and sewage.
But I don't know whether we can do the sewage because it might... they might be
digging out toilets, yeah. So deferment, to find out exactly how they're going to
to deal with this within the listed building.
And Councillor Coleman, you're seconding that.
So the proposal is to defer on the basis
that we haven't got enough information
about the sort of kitchen paraphernalia
and the works like the flues, extractor fans.
Is that a reasonable reason for deferral?
Yeah.
Okay, so we'll go to the vote on that
unless there is any further comment or alternative proposal.
The vote is to defer this to get that information.
This application will come back together with the full application.
Thank you very much.
The other one is in the middle.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:34:42
You came for the application of the Bibery one, both of them are deferred because we
need further information.

12 25/03713/FUL - Hill Farm, Main Road, Oddington

Let's move swiftly on to the Hillbarn application.
Yes, you can call him back.
.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:36:23
Thank you.
Okay, thank you for returning, Councillor Fowles.
We're moving on to the next application,
which is replacement park conversion and remodelling
of existing general heavy industrial buildings site
with a rural business hub,
including associated landscaping
and consolidated parking, gosh, it's a mouthful,
at Hill Farm, Main Road, Oddington, Gloucestershire.
The case officer is Amy Hill again, wonderful woman.
And the wood Councillor is David Cunningham,
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:36:55
Officer - 3:36:59
but I don't think he's here. Thanks. Amy could you do the presentation for us?
Thank you, Chair. Put the presentation on because there's no updates with this one. So we have an
application. You have probably seen a site, this site's the same one as Berry
Bank. I don't know if you remember the Ampere Theatre from a couple years ago
but just so that you're aware that's, it's not that exact site but it's sort of
the adjacent field but it's within the same ownership. So they have some new
ownership. Essentially the site, the wider site area is associated with the
amphitheatre that came in a couple of years ago that was refused and refused
appeal. So sometimes it might be referred to as Barry Bank but this application has
been submitted as being as Hill Farm. The current application is quite separate.
It relates to the existing buildings that were along the site so that
That primarily is the barn conversions, also the barns that were there and the bungalow.
There's an application already, or an application has been approved previously for the demolition
of the bungalow and its replacement to the north of the site.
As part of that, there were repair and remediation works with the amphitheatre and some of the
tree planting as part of that.
But our focus is just on that lower area where there's the building.
It's not actually, it was permitted as, historically agricultural, but is now lawfully a B2 use.
And there was permission a couple of years ago for that to be used for other commercial
purposes.
We're in the Cotswold National Landscape, and as you can see, there is a public right -of -way
that runs through the corner of the site.
It's just the north of the conservation area of Brodington, and is also, and is just along
north of the A436 as you come out of Star on the Bald.
So that's a little bit closer in so you can see to the north there is the bungalow and
then our main barn which we turned as barn one for the report is that main central one
and you can see there's also quite a bit of engineering works that have gone on otherwise.
And you can see to the right hand side, the top right hand corner is where you have sort
of planting of cherry trees as part of that association with the Abbey Theatre.
And what they've shown on this plan, obviously this isn't part
of the current application, but just as a material
of consideration, is that the building to the north
of the site, labelled Berry Bank,
is the proposed new dwelling that's been approved.
A proposed dwelling, so it's an approved scheme.
I haven't done too many photos, so these are taken
from their visual impact statement.
So along the road, you can see currently the existing entryway into the site.
And then if you were sort of close to where the public right -of -way goes, you'd be able
to see the existing barn and units with storage containers and the like there.
So just to give you an idea of what the site currently looks like near enough from the
public right -of -way.
And then from the other side, you can see, and so if we were standing more where those
trees were you can see the bungalow and barn one on there. They've come in for it to be
a really, the proposal is for it to essentially be a series of smaller commercial units to
allow a mixed hub on the site. As part of that they're looking to convert the existing
barn one. They're taking a part of that off, sort of more lean to structure and instead
and building a couple of extra barns,
which I'll go through further,
but you can sort of see them on that site plan,
including, and most of these are going to be timber clad
with one of them a stone building, one of the smaller ones.
So to zoom in slightly,
and then they've got the parking area to the north.
You can also see that they've got their posing planting
along that western edge,
sort of which will separate out the public right of way
from the industrial, sorry, from the commercial area.
And so in terms of, sorry, I'm gonna go on with this.
So it's not specified which bars are going to be
for each use, so it's a more flexible use
depending on what commercial needs are,
although there are some restrictions suggested
by conditions, so sort of where some of the noisier
activities might be.
But you can see our main large building.
And then the smaller one, the barn two,
so that's the proposed new build.
So the previous one was a conversion.
This one's a new build.
And you can see they're using details like these to try
and sort of minimise the light spill
or at least reduce light spill in the overall impact.
And then our further north one.
So this one is the two barns together.
So the existing barn is the one on the right -hand side
and the proposed one to the left.
That's the small stretch to the north.
And then the stone barn,
sort of close to where the car parking is.
And just as a section through the site,
so you can see whilst there's currently a slope,
the main part of that site is relatively flat.
They would have to do some operations,
but it's mostly uses that existing yard area.
Just for clarity in terms of uses, in case we're not quite sure, so in terms of their
existing use, lawful use is a B2 use, which is the general heavily industrial, so you
typically expect quite a lot of noise associated with them because they're described ones you
wouldn't usually expect around residential houses.
They are still including some B2 use, but they're wanting EG uses, which are office -type
uses, so you have the office, research and industrial, but of a smaller scale which tends
to be more compatible with residential, as well as some B8 which is storage and distribution
uses.
Thank you, Shep.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:42:53
Thank you very much.
We have Mark Goodson, the agent.
Thank you for your patience.
It doesn't look like it.
I don't think you referred it.
No, it's major development.
Thank you.
You've got three minutes and Councillor Judd will butt in when you've finished.
Thank you very much.
So just press the button to start.
Applicant/Agent - 3:43:31
Thank you.
This application is at its core about the positive evolution of an existing lawful employment site into something better.
Better designed, better controlled and better aligned with modern rural business needs.
We have worked with officers from pre -application through to this application and it is important to start with the fallback position.
This site already benefits from a lawful, unrestricted B2 industrial use.
This allows heavy vehicle movements, unrestricted hours and un -enabling noise.
Whilst the Highway Authority has raised some comments about sustainability,
the actual increase in traffic is very modest, rising only slightly at peak times and overall.
Crucially, this proposal replaces a more harmful use, including HGV movements,
with a managed lower impact employment environment, supported by measures such as travel plans,
EV provision and sustainable transport measures.
Indeed, the policy test is not whether the site is perfectly sustainable, but whether
the impact would be severe.
And on the evidence before you, it is clearly not.
The MPPF is also clear that councils should recognise that sites to meet local business
needs in rural areas may have to be found adjacent to or beyond existing settlements
and in locations that are not well served by public transport.
This is regardless of any fallback position.
But the real attractiveness of this proposal lies in its combined delivery of a landscape -led,
well -designed, low -carbon proposal that also delivers clear economic benefits.
It has been delivered by an established locally -rooted business that has created many jobs over the
last decade and employs a workforce where 92 % live locally.
This will support the rural economy in and around Oddington, Stowe and the North Cotswolds.
The local plan confirms that policy EC3 encourages employment proposals which
deliver incubation space for small -scale rural economic activity, exactly the type
of employment the proposal will provide. Indeed the council's own economic
development lead offers strong support describing the project in his
consultation response as an innovative model for rural employment capable
of being a blueprint to be replicated elsewhere and specifically
highlighting that it will reduce the need for commuting to larger towns and
cities. The MPPF states the significant weight should be given to supporting
economic growth and the council should facilitate the sustainable growth and
expansion of business in rural areas both through the conversion of existing
buildings and well -designed new buildings. When all of this is combined
with substantial biodiversity net gain, clear landscape improvements, the design
benefits and the support of the parish council then the conclusion is clear.
This is a policy compliant significant upgrade to the existing site which will
deliver real economic benefits for the district whilst improving environmental
outcomes. For these reasons I respectfully request that members support
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:46:28
the officer recommendation and grant planning commission today. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Do we have a report from Councillor Cunningham? I perceive
if he's not here.
He didn't propose it.
No, it's the major development, yeah.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:46:44
We'll move on to questions.
Councillor Judd.
Councillor Julia Judd - 3:46:52
I just have one question about the height of the barn.
So from what I, it was just the parish council
raised it, alerted me to it.
that one of the new barns is slightly higher
than the existing barn.
And I just wondered what the officer's take is on that.
Officer - 3:47:12
Essentially, that it wouldn't be harmful.
It's, I've got measurements in the report
of going with the existing height of barn one is 8 .4
and the proposed one for the barn two,
which I think is the one being mentioned,
would be 8 .8 metres.
So it's about a 40 centimetre increase.
it's not considered harmful.
Councillor Julia Judd - 3:47:34
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:47:37
I just wanted to know a bit more about it, so thank you very much.
Councillor Bridges?
That's exactly my question.
So can we actually ask them to reduce the height?
I don't consider it to be justified to do so.
I don't think there's any harm from the height of the proposed building.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Councillor Coleman.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 3:48:01
Thank you, Chair.
It is a different point for me.
This is on page 276, which is page 2 of the Highway Authority's contribution.
And about halfway down, there is a paragraph that says the Highway Authority would recommend
that an application such as this be refused on the grounds of the unsustainable location
of the site and the potential impact of the traffic on highway safety and capacity unless
further information were provided to demonstrate that any impact on highway safety was not
unacceptable.
Double negative.
It is the next paragraph I really can't decipher.
I will have a go at speaking it.
However, it is acknowledged that there is a history of the Highway Authority not objecting
to some applications, objecting to others in the past and the existing permission giving
a fallback position, that this may make an objection problematical for the local planning
authority, which is us, as they have previously ignored objections on highway grounds and
therefore if the application is to be approved, it be subject to the following conditions."
And then they suggest a condition which I don't really care to analyse because I can't
make sense of what they're saying when they say sometimes they objected in the past, sometimes
Sometimes they didn't object, sometimes there was a fallback position.
It might be difficult for us because sometimes we never ignore objections on Holy Grounds
incident.
This is actionable.
It's just as well in a way we're all going to be one authority soon, isn't it?
Because highways having a go at planning and planning having a go at highways is no way
to get on.
Is there actually any meaning in that paragraph?
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 3:49:50
Effectively, I think what it's alluding to is that there's obviously a planning history associated with this site.
As planners, we have to consider the application in the round, so whilst highways may have raised an objection in the past,
if there is a material fallback position, we may view that the material, the additional transport movements, whatever it might be, are not harmful to warrant refusal.
I think I don't necessarily disagree.
It's somewhat convoluted and difficult to follow sentence,
but my view is simply that it is alluding to the, yeah,
the kind of the planning history of the site.
We had the very Van Campy theatre.
There was a change of use of these buildings previously.
There's been an awful development certificate
relating to the legal use of the site as B2.
And I think it's simply alluding to that.
And there's been a mixture of highways responses
to that in the past, but I say I didn't write it.
We don't have the highways officer here,
so I wouldn't want to speak on their behalf.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:50:45
that's my inference for the Britain one of the conditions goes into quite a lot
of dear detail about the travel plan condition 21 sorry who else take a pass
up cancer fans yeah what counts the Coleman said and then Harry's response
It actually says in that middle paragraph that highways have objected to some applications.
Is this talking about this site and applications on this site?
Is it making a more general point about the inconsistency of highways?
Seems to me it's making a more general point about highways.
Officer - 3:51:28
I believe, and I should make sure I realtize this, but I'll focus on Shubhav.
Primarily, when it was the amphitheatre, they didn't raise any objection to the traffic
movements to that, and obviously that would have created quite a lot of sort of peak traffic
movements at certain times.
But I believe for the other application, the one that's essentially the extent scheme on
this actual site for the redevelopment of the barns or the reuse of the barns commercial,
they raised an objection to that, but we didn't consider, given the previous lack of objection,
Officer - 3:52:06
that it was justifiable. We can defend that.
The site, but the wider site to include, because where the amphitheatre is isn't this site,
but it is within that same ownership and sort of envelope.
Councillor David Fowles - 3:52:18
It almost seemed like a bearing of the soul from Malcolm Jertz on behalf of highways over
the last however many years that finally they have admitted that they are not very consistent
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:52:34
but it is in relation to this side.
Councillor Nikki Ind - 3:52:37
We are still admitting they are not very consistent.
Councillor End.
Thank you, yes.
Can you just confirm then, those concerns that were raised in that letter though are
included in the conditions 20 and 21.
where we talk about a travel plan and visibility displays.
Does that sort of encompass what they're talking about in their objection? Or is there more we should be considering?
Officer - 3:53:04
So the conditions aren't exactly as proposed by the
Highways Officer.
The travel plan one is there in different words. That was primarily to be able to split up because they had a
honestly like a framework travel plan submitted with the application because
it's going to be lots of small units it's quite hard to actually give like an
overarching travel plan in one go so the condition essentially means that once
they know who's going in what kind of use that's going to be please we have
the details of what you're going to do. The other condition I'll think to just
double cheque as we go about the development of the hard -standing parking
areas I believe that one is in there as of the visibility. The one that's not is
the last one asks for regarding the uses.
The permission prior to, so the existing stance scheme
for the redevelopment or the conversion of the buildings
included, it didn't have a restriction
on what sort of uses were used in which areas.
Whilst it has, it would be a mix, it'd be a flexible use,
such as with this, it didn't have that specific.
So the travel plan, also the travel information
submitted as part of this application, sort of assumed
that that previous approval would be entirely offices,
which tends to have sort of the higher, well,
I say offices, e .g. uses, which tend to have the highest level
of movements in terms of staff members coming and going.
Obviously, not the same type,
because you get larger vehicles in different types
with the different uses, but in terms of just quantity,
would have been as the office use.
I've, and the information they provide was based
on why if we compare that use and traffic movements
to what we're currently proposing
and they within that specified an 80 % floor space
to be used for office thing.
So that's why there's a conditional for that.
So I didn't consider the condition put on by suggested
by highways to be reasonable, but we controlled otherwise.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:55:08
Do you want to move on to comments?
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 3:55:16
This is the most interesting site.
As I think is referred to in the discussion, the amphitheatre proposal was brought to this
committee by Councillor Cunningham.
I don't think he was seeking a refusal, but he got it.
And those of us who had done the site visit
thought that was a little bit edgy,
but the inspector agreed with the council
and it was refused.
It was the most interesting but unacceptable proposal.
What this site, I think it's the same individual,
the same organisation, have come forward with this proposal,
got the parish council to support it.
It's a new individual.
New individual, sorry, my apologies.
anyway the site continues to be of immense interest because of this very
interesting proposal with full of travel plan reminding us it's only nine minutes
down the road to a railway station that sort of thing and clearly the likely
provision of jobs in a reasonable way with using these bonds I just think I'm
for once convinced I should propose to agree with the officers
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:56:26
Councillor David Fowles - 3:56:27
recommendations and approved. Thank you. It's getting quite dangerous sitting
beside Councillor Coleman because I was going to say what he was going to say.
I think it's an excellent report. I think it's a really positive step forward.
Clearly there are a few issues to do with highways but I'd be delighted to
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:56:48
second the office, second Councillor Coleman in terms of supporting the
recommendation excellent and does anyone have anything further to comment or
Councillor David Fowles - 3:56:55
shall we move to the vote sorry yes councillor judge I was at the site visit
Councillor Julia Judd - 3:56:59
for the amphitheatre thing and I remember that we didn't like the cherry
trees and I thought that they'd been asked to take them out and plant not you
know yes native species which was which is what they had permission for I know
cherry trees are still there looking very urbanised anyway I just had to drop
that in I but water it's quite nice to see units and and employing
opportunities in that area which is supported by the local people from what
I can see and I think it's a good good use of the land having seen it from the
site visit and it did seem a bit of a pig in the Pope the other thing but
Anyway, this is far more comfortable with this.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:57:44
I don't think the cherry trees are actually on the application site.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:57:49
No, they're not, but I just thought I'd drop.
Okay, if there's no more comments, we're going to move briskly onto the vote
to accept the officer's recommendation to permit this development.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:58:10
That has passed unanimously. Thank you very much. Does anyone need a further comfort break
Councillor David Fowles - 3:58:31
before we move on to the next application? We have the RAU 1 and then the update on the
fees. I didn't appreciate the meeting to go on this long and I have got to go to quite
important meeting. The other issue and I think...
You're going to the planet.
No, I didn't say that. I just unfortunately do have to be somewhere else. But also I'm
very mindful of the fact that as I was outside the room, spent most of the time outside the
room, although he's not named as the applicant, there is a member of the public over there
that is, I think his title is the chief. Are you chief operating officer?
I am the chief operating officer of the RAU who bought my house when he moved down here
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:59:19
from Liverpool and I think that might preclude me from...
Ah, that's a transaction, it's over.
Councillor David Fowles - 3:59:22
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:59:23
He did tell me he's delighted with the house and enjoying living there which is great.
Okay, so are you leaving?
I'm going to have to leave, I'm just conscious of the fact that it's going to leave the committee
a bit short.
Yes, no, one, two, three, four.
We'll still be six which is qua -ret.
Is that okay?
Yes.
Okay. I really do apologise, Chairman.
We're giving Council in five minutes to go to the meeting.
Councillor David Fowles - 3:59:48
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:59:49
Should we pause for five minutes in case anyone else needs to do that?
Would you excuse me?

12 25/03713/FUL - Hill Farm, Main Road, Oddington

Councillor David Fowles - 3:59:53
Just five minutes, I shall call you back in five minutes.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:59:55
Yeah, five minutes.
Thank you. If anyone's still watching at home, you're being unbelievably patient.
And thank you to all of you who stayed here as well.
We have had a long afternoon.

13 24/01143/OUT - The Royal Agricultural University, Stroud Road, Cirencester

We are now on to the final application,
which is for an outline planning application
with all matters reserved except for access
for a mixed -use development associated with the RAU.
I won't read absolutely every piece of this
because it is available on the agenda pack,
which is available online.
The development is known as the RAU Innovation Village
and forms part of its wider master plan,
supporting research and innovation in food production,
climate change, and land management
at the RAU Stradroid -Sarincestor.
And the recommendation is that the application
is permitted subject to a legal agreement
between the applicant and the district council
and the county council,
prior to the decision notice being issued.
Secondly, agreement of draught conditions set out
in the report, together with any draught conditions
as may be agreed at this committee,
delegated authority being given to the head of planning services
in consultation with the chair and vice -chair of planning and licencing
to amend and or add to the suggested draught conditions
where such amendments would not deviate significantly
from the purpose of the draught conditions.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 4:01:22
So, after all that mouthful, I'm going to ask Mr Bally to do the presentation for us.
Yeah, thank you, woman. Just probably a quick heads up.
This was meant to be obviously the case officer should be Kerry Porter. Unfortunately, she called in sick this morning
I picked this up at the last minute
Please give me a bit of time if you have any technical questions as I have sort of yeah throw this together
Well, I picked up everything Kerry had done but I I may not quite be as well drilled on as she would have been
Can I grab the slides and so there's a few quick updates
There's a few sort of dangling threads left in the report the first relates to active travel England who recommended fur on the application
We've since then had quite extensive discussions with Gosh County Council
highways in relation to those comments. Whilst deferral has been recommended
relating to the desire to secure a contribution towards active travel
improvements, the application will rely on works already proposed as part of the
steadings development for active travel improvements along the existing dual
carriageway and we've discussed quite sensitive GCC highways and we're
satisfied that those active travel improvements are satisfactory to
accommodate this proposed development. It would be subject to a gramping
condition that is already proposed in the application so there's a bit of an
update on those whilst they are actually travelling they're still recommending
deferral we are satisfied the application is acceptable in its own
right and therefore our recommendation remains. The only other point is in terms
of air quality there were a question raised by our air quality officer
relating to changes to the transport assessment and this is related to some
additional information that was submitted
in the last month or so.
We've reconsulted that officer based on those
because the change to the transport assessment
might mean additional congestion at different positions
or what they said.
So they're just going to review the implications of that.
Our view is that isn't gonna have a substantial impact
on the outcome of the application.
Therefore, we effectively are happy to proceed,
but it's just to make note that effectively
that third criteria in the recommendation
is effectively subject to a no objection
coming from our Air Quality Officer
and any conditions that they might recommend,
which we would include obviously in consultation
with the chair.
If they were to raise an objection
or request any substantial information,
we would effectively bring it back to committee
at that point.
But with that in mind, I'll just run through this slide.
So yes, there's an outline proposal
for the strategic RAU and linked development.
So the site is located on the western edge of Syrinsester,
set between the Stroud Road and the Tepry Road
as shown on that plan.
It forms part of the RAU campus expansion area.
The site is within the Cotswolds National Landscape,
the boundary of which runs along Tepary Road to the south,
so the landscape runs to the north.
It's identified in the local plan as a special policy area,
so policy EC4.
Effectively, it doesn't quite designate the site,
but it supports the development and growth of the RAU campus.
So this is a slightly zoomed -in version of that same plan.
It's probably worth noting a public right -of -way
that runs through the southwestern portion of the urban site. And again the
main RAU site is that cluster of buildings to the northwest or the top
left corner of your plan as you see it there. So this is an extract from the
council's digital local plan. The RAU has identified the local policy area.
It's the first special policy area within the local plan where proposals for the
expansion of the university campus including educational training, business,
research and development, student accommodation, operational floor space
will be permitted. This policy carries significant weight in our decision -making with this application.
The policy requires a master plan to be submitted, which has been done. I'll show you a glimpse
of that in a moment. But yeah, the amounts of this platform is part of that overarching
master plan of this eastern portion of the site. So our view, the officer's view, the
principal is strongly supported by the development plan, but obviously members still need to
consider impact on the natural landscape, the design, heritage, highways, trees, and
So this, I appreciate there's a lot going on on that plan, and it's probably a bit small,
but is a copy of the overall state master plan for the RAU.
So this proposal forms part of that wider campus master plan with the Innovation Village
to the east.
The idea is that there's a strong link to research and teaching.
So the RAU, this site is a research development, office development, but the idea is it links
in with the main REU educational side of the institution.
A little bit of background.
So the site benefits from extant outline planning commission
for a larger scheme of around 34 ,000 square metres.
This site is off the top of my head
around 22 ,000, 24 ,000 square metres.
So it is quite considerably smaller and more refined
than the original extant permission.
That extant permission is longstanding.
It originated in the early part of the 2000s.
has been re -upped basically through re -application periodically throughout
the last 20 years. I say the current schemes are smaller and updated for you
aligned with the RAU master plan and aligns with as we say the policy within
the local plan. The other part of the idea of the policy was preserving the
parkland setting so if I show you this is the indicative master plan or the
indicative site plan for the proposed Innovation Village as you can see it
retains that central green corridor through the middle,
which is the Parkland setting,
which is something that isn't achieved
in the previous scheme
and is considered an improvement to this site.
For a bit of context on what we're proposing,
so phase one of this would be
the northern cluster of buildings.
They'd make use of existing accesses off of Stroud Road,
which would be enhanced to achieve visibility displays
where they don't currently meet the intensification
of those accesses.
Phase two would then be via a new roundabout
off of Tepry Road,
which is already linked as part of the Stedings development.
And then there'd be the internal access road
that you can sort of see runs to the southern boundary
of the site and with the strip of development
coming off to the northern side of that,
that internal access road.
Phase three would then be the reuse of Trent Lodge
as a cafe.
So you'll probably struggle to make it out,
but there's an existing building,
which I'll show you a closer image of in a minute
on the northern part of the site,
which would be used as a cafe, but that is phase three.
Buildings would generally be one to three storeys.
the proposal built a very high energy performance and it's but it is important
to note the actual design and layout would be their reserve matters they
would be subject to future applications that this is indicative it's not fixed
at this stage but again significant landscaping and green infrastructure does
form part of the proposal. So yeah as I say there's a couple of existing
buildings on the site. It's largely open in character. The Steddings
Cottages on the south there's also as I say Trent Lodge we're still building in
middle to the top, which is considered a non -designated heritage asset and there's also the modern
Alistairn Centre which was developed relatively recently.
As I say, policies specifically of retaining the parkland character, which is I think a
benefit of this scheme which isn't achieved in previous ones.
A couple of quick photos and just a bit more detail on the phasing.
So phase one is the access off the north via the two existing accesses.
There'd be a pedestrian cycle accessed throughout the site and a new toucan crossing which is
that pinky red line, which my colleague very accurately drew
on that map as you can see, but that will be put all forward
as part of phase one of the development.
What's the cross -off?
Two can cross.
So phase two would rely upon the new roundabout proposed
on Tepary Road, and this roundabout is already proposed
as part of the Stedding's development,
and we would include, we propose a grand condition
that would effectively tie the use of,
the delivery of phase two, the commencement of phase two
to the delivery of that roundabout.
As I said, it is delivered as part of a separate scheme.
So there is a Grampian condition recommended.
Couple of quick photos.
The slide shows, the top shows the northeastern view
along Teppery Road.
The bottom image shows the view along Stroud Road,
which is probably about the point of that two -con crossing.
For a little bit of wider context,
as I've mentioned the steadings a couple of times,
is probably worth just, you know, making clear what I'm
talking about.
So the site we've got, you know, our site is outlined in yellow
and with the indicative master plan for the steadings shown to
watch the south of Chesterton and Sire and Sistere area,
obviously get indicative.
It's all subject to stuff going forward, but again, just a bit
of context as to where it sits adjoining that.
And again, this is a pretty useful illustrative aerial plan
that the RAU team have prepared and submitted.
Again, worth really highlighting all of this is indicative and
subject to reserve matters applications,
both the steadings to the left hand side of the image there.
But again, that is all going to be subject to reserve matters
in the future.
So this is all indicative, but I think it's just again,
useful to show you how it would sit in that context.
And finally, this plan just shows,
we have a series of tree preservation orders on the site.
Again, layout is reserve matter.
So the detailed impacts upon individual trees will be,
you know, building positions will be considered
at a later date through the reserve matters.
However, we are again proposing conditions
to secure tree protection, ultra -measured statements,
and replacement compensatory planting
where we will lose protected trees.
There will be some loss of trees already identified
but are identified at outline stage.
But on balance and in consultation with the tree team,
we're satisfied that that isn't causing,
the harm will be outweighed by the benefits of the scheme.
So I thought I'd probably just to summarise,
the proposal is considered to accord
with the development plan overall,
particularly policy UC4, which supports the REU expansion.
It would deliver significant public benefits,
which I think the report goes through in a bit more detail.
It would result in some harm, including to protect trees
and limited heritage and landscape impacts,
but these harms are considered capable of mitigation
and are outweighed by the benefits of the development.
Conditions and legal obligations would secure
the necessary phasing, highways mitigation,
active travel planning, along with biodiversity
and again, tree protection drainage, et cetera.
The recommendation is therefore to resolve to grant planning commission subject to the criteria set out in that recommendation on the front page.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 4:11:32
That's everything from me. I'm happy for questions.
Thank you very much, Newt. We've got public speakers first of all.
First of all, Mr Odell, Alex Odell, are you an objector?
Yes.
Okay.
We flipped over the page, so it's slightly difficult to see.
And then Mr Peter McCaffrey, applicants representative.
Thank you.
So you both will have three minutes and my colleague, Councillor Judd, will cut you off
if you overstretch yourself.
Okay, Mr Adel, fire away.
Okay.
Objector - 4:12:15
There's a button.
You've got your microphone on.
First of all, thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to speak.
My name is Alex O 'Dell.
I'm speaking as a resident.
I live, sorry, I know on behalf of my neighbours,
we actually live in Bartonbury, which is the property
on the northeast of the master plan, as you said, as you saw.
To be honest, we're broadly supportive
of the Royal Agricultural University and the ambition
to develop the site and the Innovation Village,
and we recognise the potential economic and educational benefits
that this development could bring or will bring
to Sire and Sestor and the wider region.
However, we would ask that the following matters are given
careful consideration as part of the appeal process
and any subsequent detailed design stages.
So there's four areas I'd like to talk through.
The first one is the proximity of the proposed buildings
to the existing residential properties.
We are particularly concerned about the proximity of one
of the proposed buildings, plot 4B, to our property boundary
and the potential impact this will have
on the residential amenity, including outlet, privacy,
noise and overall sense of enclosure. Given this is an outline application and
the wider master plan appears to offer flexibility we would ask whether the
site in this particular building could be reconsidered and relocated elsewhere
within the development. A revised position may still achieve the objectives of the
master plan whilst reducing impact on the neighbouring homes. The second point is
the increased pedestrian traffic adjacent to the residential boundaries.
We understand the scheme will inevitably increase pedestrian activity around the
However, we are concerned that Bose pedestrian routes close to
our boundary may lead to increased disturbance,
overlooking, and loss of privacy for existing residents.
We therefore ask that further mitigation measures are
explored, including enhanced landscaping and tree planting,
additional screening or boundary treatments, careful positioning
of lighting and footprint paths, and measurements, sorry, measures
to discourage unnecessary congregation close
to residential boundaries.
We'd welcome clarification on what mitigation is currently
proposed and whether this can be strengthened during the reserve matter
stage. Third point, highways and pedestrian safety on the Stroud Road.
We also have concerns regarding this pedestrian safety on Stroud Road,
particularly given the likely increase in traffic movements and pedestrian
crossings associated with the development. We'd appreciate
further detail on what highway modifications and traffic calming
measures are being considered. This is already a very busy road and
some important safety considerations are fully addressed before development
proceeds. Finally on the construction management and the build programme we'd
request further information regarding the anticipated construction programme
including the overall timings for the building phase, proposed working hours,
construction traffic routes and management, measures to minimise noise,
dust and disruption to neighbouring residents and the ongoing communication
arrangements with local residents through the construction period. Given
the scale of the developments in Portland, the robust construction
management plan is put in place to protect the immunity of existing residents during
the building process. I appreciate the opportunity to comment, so thank you very much and hope
Councillor Dilys Neill - 4:15:22
that these matters can be constructively addressed as the proposal progresses.
Thank you.
Perfect timing. Thank you very much.
Now Mr McCaffrey. Thank you. Three minutes.
Peter McCaffrey, Royal Agricultural University. Good afternoon. Thank you for this opportunity.
we would like to make three points.
One, when we first conceived of this project over three years ago
and secured 100 ,000 pound seed corn funding from Gloucestershire County Council
to help develop the idea, it coincided with all the district councils in the county
Applicant/Agent - 4:15:56
signing up to the declaration to address the climate emergency.
The Innovation Village project is our contribution to the climate emergency.
We've been a university of purpose ever since our inception in 1845.
Our enduring passion and commitment is caring for the land and all who depend on it.
As a recognised global facilitator, our Innovation Village will bring together industry, food
producers, farmers and landowners to develop sustainable solutions for food production
and biodiversity recovery while building resilience in rural communities.
It will attract international investment to drive solutions for the global challenges that faces.
Climate change for sure, but also food security, sustainable land use, water management and decarbonisation, as well as heritage management.
Two, we recognise that to be a great university we also need to be a great local university.
We are delighted to have been working with the support of Cotswold District Council,
the former G1 Local Enterprise Partnership, Gloucestershire County Council and the Department
for Business and Trade in developing our proposition.
The RAU currently contributes over £50 million to the local economy and when fully fledged,
our Innovation Village will contribute a further £50 million.
Alongside turbocharging, entrepreneurial solutions for sustainable land use and a net zero future,
Our Innovation Village will help improve the retention of 16 to 24 year olds within Gloucestershire
through the provision of skills training and employment opportunities.
Centred on agriculture, food and land management, our 12 -hectare campus Innovation Village will
be a first for the UK.
It will be a beacon for UK and international businesses committed to regenerative agriculture
and net zero.
Through local, national and global in scope, our Innovation Village will be landscape -led
and set new standards for sustainable design and environmental responsibility to ensure
a development that is beautiful, carbon neutral, rich in nature and inspires innovation through
its environment.
Our mission at the RAU is to equip a new generation of graduates to help address the global challenges
that faces and we commend to you our innovation village proposition in the
Councillor Dilys Neill - 4:18:24
same spirit. Thank you very much would you like to both return to your seats?
Councillor Mark Harris is the ward member has he submitted anything? In which case
I'd like to open the debate with some questions.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 4:18:45
Yes, Chair.
I think I should mention that there is a response here
from the Science Estes to Town Council's planning committee,
which I'm a member of.
I don't think I was at the meeting that submitted this,
but it could have been some time ago.
And I'd urge colleagues to cheque through the view
of Sciences to town council, five paragraphs, 7175 and page 110.
And my question is particularly with regard to the point made in 7 .3, which is that there
is no mention here of additional student accommodation.
Do we have any estimates as to how many additional students are likely to be added to the role
of the university by the time this project is finished and whether we have any draught
proposals yet for where they are going to be housed.
The phrase to avoid negative impacts on the local housing market is an incredibly polite
way of putting, of describing some of the impacts that inadequate on -site accommodation
for students can cause in a very relatively small town like Science system. So I'm grouping
three things together, but I think there, but one of them is a question about what the
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 4:20:12
point made in 7 .3, which I would have made even if I wasn't on the town council.
So this, the Innovation Village is proposing research and development and office use primarily.
It has education description because of its link to,
I think the idea is that you can go and study
at the Royal Agricultural University
and then the innovation villages there
effectively is your pathway from there
in terms of developing on the skills you learn
at the village.
Can I have the slides back up just quickly?
So the overall master plan does include,
obviously this would all be subject
to future planning applications.
It's outside the red line boundary for this development,
but the blue area in the top corner
is where they're showing their residential accommodation areas which
includes a new student accommodation slash hotel they described on the plan
but I believe it's from memory reading the estate management plan it was around
150 additional units of accommodation in a yeah a student hall style approach I
would have thought again all subject to detail design and the future of its
coming forward so whilst this develop what this development I wouldn't expect
to add any additional student people you know students living in the area that
would need to be accommodated the wider estate master plan does have a proposal
Councillor Dilys Neill - 4:21:22
Councillor Nikki Ind - 4:21:23
for additional student accommodation to support the growth of the RAU.
Councillor Hinde. Thank you chair and just a confirmation really from you
Harrison so Mr. O 'Dell bought four different things proximity of buildings
routes highways construction management that is all for not for this application
but for a, you know, later on when the detailed stuff comes?
Is that right?
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 4:21:46
Effectively, yes.
I mean, it's probably worth highlighting.
So yeah, obviously detailed design, layout,
building design is all subject to reserve matters.
And I think we've heard the concerns raised
and we've had them on the application.
Plot 4B, which is the one adjoining the property,
is already shown as limited to single storey and height.
So we've already started to consider that.
Obviously, its placement and its distance
from the boundaries is something we can then consider further
at reserve matters.
I think the point on how it impacts the boundary
and especially the footpath that runs alongside is a valid one.
It's something we'd consider.
But again, I think paragraph 10 .93 of the report is
from our ARS noise officer and they've talked
about having acoustic assessments,
especially noise impact assessments submitted
as part for each development part
of the development that comes forward.
I think it currently says prior to a reserve matters.
I might suggest we change that to with a reserve matters
because to me it makes a lot more sense.
But I don't know if that's just a drafting thing.
but I believe that was condition 25.
So yes, that would be considered as part of that.
And otherwise, as you say, yeah, layout and design
would be a consideration of the reserve matters.
And we'd consider immunity as part of that.
We wouldn't wanna have a single storey building
suggested here and then suddenly have a three storey,
mansions that sat next to it.
I think it's something we'd very much be wanting
to consider as part of that.
And again, construction management plan
is already conditioned, I believe condition nine.
So again, from memory, it's either pre -commencement
where it's prior to any phase and I'll double cheque wording exactly but we've
ordered that will be conditioned on the outline consent so we will control that
so that would be at the compliance with condition stage so yeah we've already
got to control and again that will relate to all matter you know whether
it's construction vehicles dust and things from the site anything during the
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 4:23:27
Councillor Dilys Neill - 4:23:28
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 4:23:29
construction phase I hope it's the only other one and I think there's a general
three -storey limit on the height of the proposed structures, which seems to me to conflict
with the objective of minimising impact on climate and emissions, given that, as actually
Ken Livingston decades ago spotted, and that's how London has done it, if you want to minimise
emissions per person and per property, you go higher, and London has, of course. I'm
the Royal Borough of Kingston are all places, but I do think given that this is an entrance,
this is rather a lovely looking entrance to our town, we might have considered a slightly
higher maximum limit. Was there a, is that all they, as far as you know, did they only,
the applicants only ask for three storeys or did we encourage them to limit it to three
storeys?
I wouldn't be able to tell you the history of where we got to from the application process,
but I do know you're probably seeing the response that our Conservation Office
has already raised concerns with the impact on the conservation area from
that approach along Tepary Road so to some extent it's all going to be about
balancing the the heritage impacts or the design impacts of that approach
alongside our ancestor with the benefits. I'd imagine I don't know off the top of my head
what the limit on the steadings employment area on the opposite side of the road is
but again integrating in terms of built form and character with that is probably
a consideration too on energy performance. I would point out condition 28 will
require sustainability in materials compliance statements and other bits and pieces to demonstrate
that there because I think part of it is really delivering these exceptionally high energy
performance buildings. I know that was something from the very early stages, it was one of
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 4:25:15
the objectives and one of the real, you know, the big points that they wanted to raise in
this. So we would control that through that condition. So whether there is scope at the
reserve matters, I don't know off the top of my head if the condition limits the height,
I think it's more indicative. But again, I think it's that balancing the rural approach
with getting the accommodation over a number of storeys. There is also Trent Lodge, which
is the non -designated heritage asset, which currently has a very open lookout onto the
parkland, so again preserving its setting and character. I think it's a juggling act
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 4:25:45
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 4:25:47
of all these different factors and that's where the three storeys so slightly ended
up.
Chair, if I may, I've got to get this right. Just for the avoidance of doubt, I was not
suggesting that we respond to our Bartonbury Glen, Bartonbury residents by going even higher
Councillor Dilys Neill - 4:26:02
near them. It was just a general feeling. Thank you. That's a relief to us all.
Anybody else with a question? Yes, just on page number 1087 it's just going back
to this distance from, yes 1090. It says with the
Bartonbury Croft will be, yes, which shows a building located over 10 metres away.
That seems very close, but over could be, you know, 100 metres.
Yeah, I think it's trying to get at least 10 metres away.
So it's 10 metres with a single storey height.
It would be subject to design.
I think it's an indicative master plan.
But yes, from what I've got up in front of me.
And as you said, those are things that are going to be dealt with
when we look at the reserve matters.
I guess that's likely to come back here isn't it the reserved matches
it depends on what the government doing in September and in combination with the
wall member works they yeah whether there's a cordon process that's still a
bit of a question mark and what that's going to look like okay any comments
then councillor van
councillor van? mine's brief it's a pity that the case officer's not here
Councillor Michael Vann - 4:27:26
because I think this is a really excellent summary of a complex project.
It really is very good.
And this is something which I think Serencestre and the Cotswolds should welcome greatly.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 4:27:45
Councillor David Fowles - 4:27:48
Councillor Conlon.
Hi.
Yes, I wanted to comment, perhaps I can't do anything about it, that the paragraph 1074
tells us that Steddings Cottages on the Tepby Road would be demolished.
This is almost the only place in Sire and Cestor for where one can say the name of our
big housing development, the Steddings, relates to, but we're going to lose it, which I guess
has got to happen. I never liked the name the Steddings. You could have had such a much
better one. In fact, I would encourage next time we're talking, let me say this as a comment,
next time we're having one of those meetings between planners, the university people and
the Steddings people, which will have to get that roundabout built on time, you can serve
both developments. Perhaps we could recommend that they think of a more interesting name
Councillor Dilys Neill - 4:28:48
for their development, such as University Park, which would raise the status of the
Councillor David Fowles - 4:28:49
town as well as the development.
Anyway, more importantly, it is, as colleagues have said, it's really encouraging to have
this now.
I did want to mention a nearby issue with a mixture of pedestrians, cyclists, caravans,
school children, and that's, I'd like to write them all down.
Not just the other side of Barton, if you're probably aware, there's a junction involving
both vehicular and pedestrian and cyclist and children people moving
around where you can go to the caravan site, to the sixth one college,
down the hill to the old kennels and the Korean brewery, to the bus stop,
particularly loads of students going to the bus stop, pupils and students, and go
through the subway to just in there and be walking to and from town. Now I don't
actually think on what we've got here that this new development will impact, will increase
up by a huge percentage, but it must be getting a bit tricky there at times. And I don't know
if it's already in the hardware authorities' plans, but thinking about the other traffic
that's going to be generated, I can express a wish that the first section of Stroud Road
down to the college be considered, because down to the university on one side, the sixth
and secondary school on the other side will need to be an early stage 2 consideration
for 20 mile an hour limits because there's just such a lot of potential conflict there
Councillor Dilys Neill - 4:30:30
between pedestrians, cyclists, students, pupils, busses and the rest of it at particular times.
I'll shut up now. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Any other?
Councillor Bridges.
Councillor Bridges.
Councillor Nick Bridges - 4:30:39
Yeah, I used to belong to a thing called the Sire and Cessna co -housing which was going to be a
passive house development and
I was one of things about this because we
We actually wanted to be on this precise
Area and the picture that came up of farm for a while
Would have been the view from my bedroom
or land or something. So I just hope we get on with this because this has been going on
for so long and I'd like some closure please. We might live long enough. We might live long
enough yeah. So I notice this is really just giving us or granting delegated authority
to pay services, which I think we should do.
But bear in mind that there are residents there.
I think we tend to forget that it is not just the agricultural students, which is exactly
what Mr Odell was saying earlier on.
So listen to him.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 4:31:55
Councillor Julia Judd - 4:31:57
Councillor Judd. I'm delighted. I've been saying for years
that Sire and Sister is fundamentally built on sheep. We are in an agricultural area and
the Agricultural College is such an enormous, sorry I'm old -fashioned, but it's such an
enormous part of our identity.
It's part of Sire and Sister's culture.
And I've been screaming for years that we are losing our
original culture.
And to see this innovation, to see that agriculture moving into
the future, we've got that place up in Morton in the Marsh.
What's that research centre that does food and things?
There has to be some sort of synergy with all this.
So I'm absolutely delighted to see this.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 4:32:47
I'm proud to be part of it.
Okay, any other comments?
Councillor Julia Judd - 4:32:54
Are you moving a proposal?
Councillor Dilys Neill - 4:32:57
Oh yes, sorry, I propose that we support
officer's recommendation to approve.
Do we have a seconder?
Is that the right?
Yes, Councillor Interview,
you were the first to put your hand up.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 4:33:08
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 4:33:10
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 4:33:12
Yep, fire away.
Very glad to support the proposal to approve, but I am a little bit concerned that we have
used in the recommendation in the last paragraph, we've referred to yourself and your vice chair
as chairman and vice chairman, and I'm pretty certain there's a style guide for this council
now that encourages us as a rule to use chair and vice chair in common with most other organisations.
I appreciate it is not a big issue for you personally, but it gives the wrong impression.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 4:33:50
It suggests it was in the 1930s.
Perhaps in future comments that can be amended.
So we can be appropriately woke or whatever.
So we are moving to the vote.
The vote is to approve the officer's recommendation
that the application be permitted,
online outline planning application
with all matters reserved, except for access,
et cetera, et cetera, for the RAU Innovation Village.
Yeah, the recommendations are for the,
there's subject to legal agreement between the applicant,
the district council, the county council,
part of the decision notice being issued,
agreement to draught conditions set out in the report.
I don't think we've attached any new ones.
delegated authority given to the head planning services in consultation with the
chair and the vice chair of planning and licencing to amend or add to the
suggested draught conditions. Yeah okay so we're voting to approve the office's
recommendation. Yes, sorry.
That is approved.

14 Response to Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government Consultation: Fees for Planning Applications

The final item on the agenda is to look very briefly, hopefully, at the response to the
Ministry for Housing Communities and Local Government Consultation on fees for planning
applications. Harrison is going to give us a brief overview.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 4:35:34
Keep this very brief. The report is hopefully able to be taken as read. There's about 22
questions the Government asked. I've drafted responses to them. Effectively, if you have
any questions or comments on them, you may either let me know now, we can discuss them,
or if you'd like to email me, you can send written comments to me by this Friday,
because I do have to respond to the government on Monday.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 4:36:01
So, but yes, if you want to do anything in writing, you're welcome to.
But that seems...
Take it home and read it properly.
Councillor David Fowles - 4:36:08
Yes, okay. Well, you've got 48 hours to do that.
Councillor Colman.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 4:36:12
Whoops.
Chair, I did take...
I often read from the back in case I find the stuff
The officers might theoretically have been hiding.
Not at this committee, I hasten to add.
On page 376, and we'll actually start from 375,
the question about PIP applications.
We've had some PIP, permission in principle applications.
I think for members and officers,
the experience has been universally negative,
certainly from the discussions I,
limited discussions I've had.
So, I would like to add, halfway down 376 before we go into question 7, the Council
also strongly urges the Government to review PIP in the light of the professional experience
so far and to urgently consider the case for abolition of PIP as a contribution to reducing
and uncertainty in the planning system. I don't pretend that I think any of the body
in government is going to read that, but genuinely PIP has caused problems for this committee,
it's caused problems for communities and it's not made officers' life, although they may
have been off the record when they spoke to me about it, it certainly hasn't made officers'
Councillor Dilys Neill - 4:37:45
life, lives and professional work any easier, straightforward or even arguably consistent?
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 4:37:49
I can read out again or…
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 4:37:57
I'll draw up something. I'll keep the paper. I hope colleagues will support me on that.
To be honest, I think most people in the building would support it. Whether the government will
listen I don't know but my personal view is that Commission and Principal Applications
are very challenging and well at a minimum I'd like to see a proper fee for
Councillor Dilys Neill - 4:38:13
them but there's no harm in suggesting that they should be questioned as well.
Councillor Nikki Ind - 4:38:16
Great. Councillor End. Thank you chair yes I was just getting absolutely concur with
Councillor Coleman. It's caused nothing but confusion in as much as I attend
town council meetings and people start to talk about you know things that
would be dealt with in the full planning application and the understanding of
what PIP is it just is is causing a bit of a which is just like an extra layer
Councillor Dilys Neill - 4:38:52
it appears to be an extra layer which isn't helpful. Does anyone else want to
comment or raise a question? I just mentioned this to Harrison already in the
meeting that on page 382 under question 18 it says who can approve variations
including the role of members that's looking at local fee setting so I think
as members we'd appreciate an understanding of whether we had a role
in that whether you know changes in local fees would be brought to cabinet
or a planning committee or O &S or who would be involved in that decision process. Clearly
the officers would recommend it. And then...
Are you happy with my wording? Would you like me to shrink? Because I think the point I'm
trying to get at is exactly that. Effectively these fee regulations are, you know, they
will require some kind of approval which the consultation itself does not set out the procedure
for. So the comment I'm making is effectively that when they publish the final legislation
whatever it might be, they need clear guidance in there. Would you like me
to strengthen that wording or are you happy with as it is? I should have numbered them.
It's at the top of page 382. It's that first bullet point at the top of that page.
I think that's probably clear enough actually. I'm happy to strengthen it.
Yeah, as long as you tell us what you want us to do. And then just a comment
Hopefully, allowing more money to flow through the planning system and not be syphoned off
into waste collection or something will help with service improvement.
People want to see their planning applications dealt with punctually.
Can we share a bit with enforcement?
That's all the comments I had.
Does anybody else have any comments?
No, I am too tired.
I would like to thank Harrison and Geraldine for toiling through that application.
I cannot believe you have done that.
And filling in the response.
What sort of paperwork it is.
Thank you very much.
Legal Services - 4:41:04
Councillor Dilys Neill - 4:41:05
We will need to vote on the recommendation.
Thank you.
What is the recommendation?
There is my recommendation.
The recommendations are that we agree to the consultation response and delegate authority
to the head of planning services to respond to the consultation.
We will need a proposal in a second.
Yes, Councillor van der Zwe has proposed.
Councillor Jad is seconded.
Okay, can you all vote please?
Two more people who haven't voted.
Snap to it.
Well I've been sitting here for five minutes
then my name came up.
Councillor Bridges you haven't.
Oh yes you have, well done.
Took a while.
Good, okay so that's accepted.

15 Sites Inspection Briefing

So just before we sign off, I do think we've got a site inspection briefing
planned at the moment. If one suddenly comes up it will be me,
Councillor Breslington, Councillor Coleman, Councillor Fann.
Councillor Judd? Yes, here you are.

16 Licensing Sub-Committee

Okay well there's no one planned at the moment so that will be held in
suspense. I don't think there is a licencing subcommittee, yes it's been
Council. That's good. And the next meeting will be June the 10th. Gloriously sunny.
Thank you all for your wonderful patience. Thank you especially to our
officers for all the work they've done and for sticking it out so long. Thank you very much.

There are currently no votes to display