Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning Decision Meeting - Tuesday 30 June 2026, 9:30am - Cotswold District Council Webcasting

Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning Decision Meeting
Tuesday, 30th June 2026 at 9:30am 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Juliet Layton
  2. Officer
  3. Tyler Jardine, Officer
  4. Nickie Mackenzie-Daste, Officer
  5. Councillor Juliet Layton
  6. Officer
  7. Councillor Juliet Layton
  8. Officer
  9. Councillor Juliet Layton
  10. Nickie Mackenzie-Daste, Officer
  11. Officer
  12. Councillor Juliet Layton
  13. Officer
  14. Councillor Juliet Layton
  15. Officer
  16. Councillor Juliet Layton
  17. Officer
  18. Councillor Juliet Layton
  19. Officer
  20. Councillor Juliet Layton
  21. Officer
  22. Councillor Juliet Layton
  23. Officer
  24. Councillor Juliet Layton
  25. Officer
  26. Officer
  27. Councillor Juliet Layton
  28. Officer
  29. Councillor Juliet Layton
  30. Officer
  31. Councillor Juliet Layton
  32. Officer
  33. Councillor Juliet Layton
  34. Officer
  35. Councillor Juliet Layton
  36. Officer
  37. Councillor Juliet Layton
  38. Officer
  39. Councillor Juliet Layton
  40. Officer
  41. Councillor Juliet Layton
  42. Officer
  43. Officer
  44. Councillor Juliet Layton
  45. Officer
  46. Councillor Juliet Layton
  47. Webcast Finished

Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:00:03
Good morning, my name is Juliet Layton and I'm the cabinet member for housing and planning
and we're here today to do a cabinet member decision making meeting for several neighbourhood
development plans. I'm going to go round the room and ask the officers to introduce themselves
please and if you can also if you've got any interest to declare please please
say it the same time because I think we'll do that all in one go thank you
Officer - 0:00:39
we start with the case officer. I'm Mark Harrison I'm the neighbourhood plans officer and I don't have any interests.
Tyler Jardine, Officer - 0:00:48
I'm Tyler Jardine Democratic Services Support and I have no declarations to declare.
Nickie Mackenzie-Daste, Officer - 0:00:55
Hello, I'm Nicky McKenzie -Dast, Senior Democratic Services Officer. I have no interest to declare
on this report.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:01:04
That's great, thank you. Well, we're streaming live today. If anybody who is interested,
well you are obviously interested if you're watching, there are 970 pages for you to read.

3 Officer Overview of the Report

There's plenty of reading material. Broken down into three areas, we're doing Moreton
Marsh, Syrinsester, and Chipping Camden,
and they put development plans in their progression.
So today we'll start, this morning we'll start with
the Morton in the Marsh.
We're at that, I'm not sure what page number it is,
but there are also annexes A to H on that.
So if you want, if people watching want to keep up with
what the annexes are, that's where they are.
And I'd like to ask Mark for, and not too long a huge update on this, but I realise
it's a very, the large volume of work has gone on to this and there are a lot of annexes.
Thank you.
Thanks.
Officer - 0:02:06
So, Morton have submitted their neighbourhood plan to us and that is annex B is the plan
document and annexes C to H. So C to G are the additional documents that come with the
plan.
So they've submitted those to us and then we run what's called a Reg 16 public consultation
for six weeks.
So stakeholders, sort of statutory bodies, residents, and planning offices here at CDC have all been able to make comments and send those in.
What we need to do today is agree CDC's response.
So although we run the consultation, we should also put comments in as well.
So they are in Annex A. And once we agree those, the other thing to agree for Morton is
to then progress it to examination.
So to procure an independent examiner who will then look at all these documents that have been submitted,
look at all the representations, including ours, that have been sent in from the consultation,
and make some recommendations on whether the plan should receive, possibly without, but usually with, modifications to do so.
Okay, so first of all was Annex A. So these are the comments we prepared.
We sort of studied Morton's plan and made some comments and I've consulted some of my
So Morton have 20 policies, so it's quite a big plan.
They've been working on it for quite a few years.
So I'll be pleased that it's progressing now.
They took on board a lot of our comments from the Reg 14 consultation.
So I've made reference to those where we've seen the changes to keep improving the plan.
You know, largely we're supportive of the scope and approach of the plan.
Everything really is just little tweaks to the policies just for clarity
or perhaps if there's duplication somewhere.
So that is largely the nature of the comments in annex A.
The only disagreement perhaps would be their proposed local green space number
five in policy 15. We're not sure that meets the criteria but they we mentioned
that reg 14 and they've kept it in so they they've considered it but decided
to keep it but we'll just leave it to the examiner to sort of tease out whether
it should stay in or not. I think that's largely it unless you had any queries
about any particular comments to any policies. Just one question, so yeah
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:06:26
I mean, I obviously not write 970 pages of all of these,
but I have looked through an awful lot of it,
and in each one where we've done our responses.
So when somewhere like Morton,
because it's such a lot of work and it's aspirational,
it's good to see actually why we have these regulations,
you know, these regs and how the responses work
and how we respond and they respond.
So, this open green space is really sitting now in the hands of the Independent Examiner
when it goes there, because I will be approving this to move forward.
So, it's totally up to the Independent Examiner and Morton will just have to accept whatever
they say for that policy.
What did you say it was?
Policy 15?
Officer - 0:07:20
It's not entirely up to the examiner.
They make recommendations and then it is actually up to us
to decide whether we accept those or not.
But then I'll also sort of get a feel from the town council as well
on the examiner's recommendations when they come around.
So it's just a case of they feel it meets the criteria, we feel it doesn't, and we'll
just take a sort of opinion.
It's not a decisive judgement from the examiner, but we'll more than likely go with whichever
way.
Thank you.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:08:08
There is still, yeah, okay, that's interesting, because I don't know that I've, I'm sure there
will have been other times, but I can't recall where we've had that thing.
it's been, you know, recommended and then, you know,
actually we're going to keep it in and we'll see what happens.
So it's quite an interesting journey now to see how that
develops because I've not really, so I don't know about it,
I think, because I don't think I've seen that.
So it will be interesting to see how that policy goes then.
Are we good to take the decision on each one?
I'm just asking dem services this rather than everything
on a whole.
So I'm yeah, I'm very happy that for this to go forward to get an independent examiner and and
You know, as you said it's taken a few years so it'd be good to keep it going and moving forward
Is that enough of the recommendation or do you need a bit more from me?
Nickie Mackenzie-Daste, Officer - 0:09:04
So the recommendations are to decide on the Cotswold District Council response to the reg 16 Morton
neighbourhood plan consultation, so you'd be agreeing to that
to decide that Cotswold District Council will procure through a bid process an
independent examiner to undertake examination of the reg 17 Morton plan. The
appointment must also be consented by the qualifying body which is Morton in
Marsh Town Council and thirdly to confirm that the comments agreed at part
one annex A and those submitted by other stakeholders annex H collated and
redacted and the submission documents annexes B to G will be sent to the
independent examiner once appointed.
Officer - 0:09:47
I should have read all that out myself.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:09:50
Instead of doing a précis of it and doing it in short form.
Thank you very much, Nikki.
So, yes, I recommend all of those and I approve all of that.
So we'll now move on to the next item we have,
which is siren sester, which is designed, again,
to decide on the CDC responses to annex I. So similar to similar position to
Morton in Marsh. So if we could have have an update on that please Mark. Thank you.
Officer - 0:10:28
Simon Sester it's very similar situation to Morton they've been working on it for
a few years and now pleased to progress it. They had submitted this to us about a year
ago, but they didn't have a policies map. But working with Sean Ashton, a very good
GIS officer, we created some maps for them, but in the process of doing that inevitably
find little tweaks in the queries in the plan.
So we've been working on it, and they've now
been able to submit it to us.
So their submission documents are the plan annex J,
and annex K to O are supplementary documents
to go with the plan. So similarly we've done a reg 16 consultation. So again that
went to sort of statutory bodies, stakeholders, landowners, residents. We've
received those comments back. We need to agree the comments that CDC are wanting
to make as part of that consultation.
So that is Annex I. And again, I've
consulted colleagues in the planning department,
depending on their specialisms.
So they have quite a lot of policies,
Simon Sester covering a large range of topics.
I think we agree with the scope and approach of those policies.
Just tidying the wording up, I think particularly, I want to speak for him, but Harrison Boley
who's our head of DMs made a lot of comments and they're very much how will
these policies be used in practise because once a neighbourhood plan is
adopted if there's a planning application in Simon Sester it will be
assessed against both the local plan or new local plan when it comes and the
neighbourhood plan in tandem. So the policies do need to be watertight and very clear on
their wording and ideally not conflict with the local plan as well. So Harrison has made
the bulk of the comments just about clarifying, tidying up those policies, getting the wording
clear of what the expectation is when we're judging applications with these
policies. But we support the approach and what they're trying to
include is just helping them get their rights so the policies are effective. So
that is the basis of the comments in Annex I.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:14:16
So my question is that it must be very difficult for them to be actually making
these you know trying to put together policies when they don't actually know
fully yet what our local plan, which is coming up everybody I'm sure you all
know we've had lots of publication about it but we will be that will be coming
forward publicly fairly shortly in July. The paperwork but so SIREN says to
make policies when they don't haven't seen that work is quite difficult so
they really do need to be listening to what Harrison's comments are to align
together because a neighbourhood plan development plan has to work with our
local plan and I've just said neighbourhood development plan I think they're
now called neighbourhood plans sorry I always have to add the D bit so that's
That's quite tricky, isn't it, when you're making a plan that you've, if you haven't
got a framework to rest it on, it's sort of a bit speculative.
So I hope they do listen to what Harrison said.
Yes.
Officer - 0:15:28
It's really the most difficult time to prepare a neighbourhood plan because it can only be
assessed against an adopted local plan.
So the current one, even though we all know a new local plan is coming, we're all working
on it.
It's been consulted on, but we almost have to pretend it doesn't exist when we're preparing
this neighbourhood plan.
So yeah, it should be sort of compatible with the local plans.
that's the current local plan. But in fairness because these places you know
they know local plans coming, they know allocations, more housing is coming so
they've sensibly steered away from that topic so we don't have any housing
allocations proposed in the neighbourhood plans and I think their idea is that you
know these policies largely about design and green spaces and protecting those
and that you know there's some on parking and things like that. Once the
allocations are sort of carry weight and you and the new local plan you know it
can also pick up these like supplementary policies that they can
in tandem. So the local plan focusing on housing and allocations and then the
neighbourhood plan at a local level has the specifics on parking and green
spaces and footpaths and that sort of thing. Thank you. Well again I'm yeah I'm
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:17:21
very happy with this. I'm actually going to read out what I'm supposed to say now. The
response to Annex I to Reg 16, Morton neighbourhood plan
consultation, also to decide that CDC will procure through
a bid process an independent examiner to undertake
examination.
I'm reading, no, I'm reading typo there, please, because I'm
reading Morton in March, and it's actually, it's actually
Siren Sester.
Sorry, if I've already said Morton, I mean the Siren Sester
neighbourhood plan consultation to decide that the CDC will procure through a bid process
an independent examiner to undertake examination of Syrinsester neighbourhood plan reg 17.
The appointment must be consented by the qualifying body of Syrinsester town council and confirm
that the comments agreed that part I annex, part one annex I and those submitted by other
stakeholders Annex O collated and redacted, and the submission of documents for sire ancestor
Annex J to N will be sent to the independent examiner once appointed. I apologise, I was
a bit hiccupy, but I had the wrong words in there, but I think I got it through correctly.
Thank you.
So now to move forward to Chipping Camden,
which is slightly different to the other two.
And to decide on the responses in paragraph 25,
the examiner's recommended modifications and exile.
So if you're with me, if you've scrolled through enough,
it's a long scroll.
So if you can give us an update on that, please.
Thank you, Mark.
Officer - 0:19:15
So for Chippenhamden there a bit further along we've had the examination now.
The examiner has been to Chippenhamden at least twice and
he did ask that we hold a hearing because
mainly to discuss local green space.
There was
for local green spaces we discussed. And essentially the town council thought they should be identified
as or designated as local green spaces. And the landowners felt differently. They made
representations throughout the consultations. The examiner also asked
both parties to make further representations and there still wasn't
much wiggle room. They were both a bit black and white in their opinions on
the issue so he felt a hearing that we held at Chippenhampton Town Hall would be
the best way to try and make some progress between the parties.
So, following the examination process, the examiner has now made recommendations. They
feel the plan could be adopted, or sorry, it could go to a referendum for whether it
could be adopted.
They feel it meets the basic conditions subject
to some recommended modifications.
Some of those on the supporting text, some of those
are on the six policies that are proposed in the plan.
So the examiner's proposals are recommendations.
So it's actually up to us, the CDC, to accept or reject those, whether we also feel it meets,
whether they're necessary modifications to meet the basic conditions to move forward.
So I'm just on Power 25 of the main report just to summarise these policies.
The examiner's full report is now at Annex R. I've just sort of summarised it in the report.
So Policy 1, it's just changing the wording, just clarifying it.
that policy is about the town centre and they are suggesting a small change to the town
centre boundary to include the pharmacy on the high street. So we I think we can support
our recommendation just just because it provides further clarity which is good for everybody
using the policy. Policy 2 the examiner is suggesting that we remove it's it's a
community facilities policy but there was some aspects of retail and that
might that might be relevant if you had a very small village and you know it's
village shop, which is retail, but you might also consider it a community
facility. But in the case of Chipping Camden, it was just a bit muddled,
that policy between what was retail, it should be protected by a town centre
policy, and what's a community facility. So the examiner's just...
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:23:34
Can I just ask a quick question? Well, we all know that Chipping Camden is a major
tourist area. So would that be kind of like what would be essential for the
community would be to have the local supermarket rather than somebody selling
teddy bears with I love chipping Camden on them. Yes is that the kind of very
Officer - 0:23:57
simplistic I realise. Yeah I think the plan sort of identifies for sort of
grocery stores that are essential compared to other retailers.
And I think the basis of their identification was were they open during COVID or not,
as to whether they're essential or like you say, sort of, yeah, a tourist outlet or similar.
Yeah, policy 3 was just about designing.
Again, it was just providing further clarity on...
Yeah, it's actually just the policy just refers to their design guide, but it's also added
in those representations suggesting it also appears to natural England's green infrastructure
planning and design guide and the building with nature standards.
So they are sort of adopted national guidance.
So we don't see any problem with referring to those or asking applicants to refer to
those where relevant for planning application.
Policy 4.
This is on non -designated heritage assets.
and in this case examiners made recommendation and don't entirely agree
with that with it I mentioned it at this point it's not really for us to sort of
rewrite the plan or make suggestions it's just sort of accept the
modifications if we feel they're necessary or not if we don't to an extent. So at power 25 .5 of the
main report the policy as submitted reads the following features are designated as
non -designated heritage assets. And the examiner is proposing to change it to the plan identifies
the following features as designated heritage assets for the purpose of the application
of policy EN12 of the local plan. So I agree with the first part which changes the word
designated to identifies because they're non -designated heritage assets so you
can't designate them so identify is a better word but the second part the
examiner has added for the purpose of the application of policy EN 12 so I
thought about this now consulted with their conservation officers and the town
Council and you know we all feel there's a lot more applications of non -designated
heritage assets beyond policy EN 12. There's a big chapter in the MPPF on
heritage assets that can be applied. There's lots of Historic England
guidance. So we feel that having that in really restricts the
identification of these assets and restricts them to only being used with
that policy and we feel there's a lot more broader uses and that actually
adding that is not an essential modification to meet the basic
conditions. And also those not critical you know very soon we
expect that the local plan will be a policy, there might be a similar policy
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:28:44
but it'll be replaced and retitled anyway. So yes. I'd like to ask a question on that so I
actually managed to find this page 17 is what we're looking at at the moment
but he's listening and wondering. So there was a the line that as we said on
25 .5 the examiner didn't like their line so they gave us
another line which was about policy EN 12 which now you've kind of rewritten at
25 .6 yes this is you were talking about so what do Chipping Camden now have to
make the decision about what they're putting in to their referendum at this
point do they change something or are we are it was that entirely up to them or
Officer - 0:29:37
we've done it already or they've done it already no it's it's really in our hands
the we've appointed the examiner and they've made these recommendations so
it's up to us whether to accept them or not just you know the the appointment
that the examiner has done with in tandem with the town council so I just
like to sound fault but their opinions and obviously you know I doubt this would
happen but they they could pull a plan if they weren't happy with what was going forward so
it's it's good to keep keep them on board as as we go along.
But yes I have explained this to them and they had a planning meeting a week ago on Tuesday the 23rd
a town council planning meeting and they've sort of gone through these
recommendations and they're happy with what I'm suggesting. It is our decision
but like I say I just sort of soundboarded them. I'll be suggesting the
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:30:55
right thing. So they have agreed, they've chosen that, so that's
in place and happening.
We need to decide.
Oh, we need to decide.
Oh, sorry. Yeah.
Now, so we're going, what I'm suggesting is that you
Officer - 0:31:12
recommend that we accept the first part of the examiner's
recommendation for policy 4, which is
basically changing, designated to identify,
but we dismiss the second recommendation which mentions policy EM12. So this is
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:31:39
the bit to decide on the response so I totally agree with you on that and the
and the examiner's recommendation annex R to the Chipping Camden neighbourhood to
assure it meets the basic conditions so it's seven is that correct to decide on
response C power 25 which is what we're looking at to the examiners recommended
modifications at Annex R to the Chipping Camden Nova plan to ensure it meets the
basic conditions is that the sentence that is doing that because actually it
doesn't really say that very clearly perhaps I find that it's a
confusing decision. I understand what you're saying and I would
absolutely support that but does that really read correctly? We're considering
Officer - 0:32:34
them now but I would need you to approve them might be the better term.
Officer - 0:32:43
I just need to go through as well. So that was policy four. So are you happy with that?
Did you have any more queries on it?
I'm happy with that and I understand that now. And if Nicky's typing away, I'm approving
that when we get to the end. Because if I read the recommendations, it just looks a
bit weird, yes? Thank you.
So there's just two more policies to mention.
So policy five, this was about, yeah, I'm on page 17 of the main report, power 25.
So this was about local nature recovery areas, which is actually one of the new basic conditions
that's coming. So it's good that they've got this policy. The examiner had
suggested some new wording when they sent it through in their sort of draught
report. It wasn't very clear. So the bullet points there, these are places
where, you know, as part development if they need to for their biodiversity, neck
gain, you know, areas that they can improve. So it wasn't clear whether these
were in a sort of preferential order or any of those three would be fine.
So in that case, because that was a clarity issue, we asked the examiner to tidy up that
wording for the final report.
So in that final report, which is Annex R, they've now sort of bullet pointed.
And actually, I think the town council actually suggested some wording.
And he's sort of reflected that in his recommendation.
So it's again just to reiterate in the examination process you know this point
we're not meant to be rewriting policies and making drastic changes but yeah we
felt what the examiner proposed wasn't abundantly clear to someone reading it.
So I suggested that he could perhaps tidy that up.
The town council sent some proposed wording to tidy it up.
And it's not really changing the approach of the policy.
It is literally just making it clear as to how these sites should be used.
So in Annex R on page 20, well it says page 21, but it's page 23 of the PDF.
The examiner has now bullet pointed those sites and it's a sequential approach.
So now the Chipping Camden local nature recovery areas are preferred.
And if they're not practical, then just elsewhere within Chipping Camden Parish,
or neither of those are practical, then somewhere that contributes to the Gloucestershire local
nature recovery strategy.
So everyone's happy with that now, because before it sort of read as if, as long as you
picked one of those three, it's okay with the policy. But now we're saying there's a
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:37:15
makes sense. So thank you it's quite complex it's so the independent examiner
doesn't mind being picked up on some of the wording that they suggest and having
Officer - 0:37:32
it changed and altered it doesn't. Well our examiner is very nice but whether they mind or not if it
needs to be turned it needs to be turned.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:37:40
And it means many heads are working on these documents actually.
I think it highlights the amount of work and consideration that goes into these.
It's not just having an aspiration and writing about it, it's very, very detailed.
And it has to comply with whatever local plan we're in.
And hopefully it will go and match the next one when that gets adopted.
Officer - 0:38:12
So yeah I think this is there any more on this? Yes last one, policy six so this
is the local green space and yeah there's a lot of representations
sort of paraphrasing, you know the landowners do not want them designated as
local green space because obviously that limits their, not saying that they want to develop
on them but obviously it would limit their potential in perpetuity and the town council
feel it's, you know, their space is worth protecting. So 19, 20 and 21, they're the
numbers of the local green spaces they were proposing. So all the others are fine and
the examiners visited all of them and accepted them. So there was four sort of up for deliberation
in this hearing. And the examiner has proposed that in the case of 19 and 20, these are on
the sort of north or west side of Chipping Camden, up the sort of rolling hill. So it
is part of the national landscape anyway.
He's proposed these aren't taken on any further so they're dropped. The town council did a very good job in the hearing. They're very well prepared and made a good case.
But I think for local green space, 19 in local green space, 20.
Again, just summarising, the examiner felt they met all of the criteria, but they fell
down on being local in character.
And that is sort of to do with size, but there isn't a sort of minimum or maximum size for
local green space.
it's a sort of subjective approach.
But what I felt is,
what they're proposing was multiple fields.
And the boundary they'd given them were sort of arbitrary.
It didn't follow a natural sort of landmarks
or parts of the field,
or it didn't follow field boundaries.
So normally local green spaces are quite distinct,
a playground, a football pitch.
when it starts becoming multiple fields,
that's when you go, oh, this isn't really local in character
and that's when the alarm bells off of
are they trying to create green belt in another form.
So I think that's why that has fallen down.
So the examiner's agreeing with their assessment
and the town council want me to put on record
that you know it meets all the special criteria for beauty and it it does you
know add make a contribution to the town but in terms of local green spaces it's
fallen down on that local in character part so the exam is recommending we we
drop those two and in this case I don't think it's clear and obvious if you like to overturn
that.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:42:14
So at the hearing was that determined at the hearing that Chipping Camden then knew that
this is what the examiner's recommendation was or does that go away and get written up
later, so they know all about this and have accepted it.
I mean, it is unusual to have big fields.
And I'm sure I know that bit.
It's up a hill, isn't it?
It's an arise, yes.
Designated, it was a good job.
I'm trying to do a green belt. I'm not sure that was the
right terminology, because the government is not taking much
notice of green belts, are they, in terms of building?
You were allowed to do things on there.
Officer - 0:42:58
Yeah, it's just local green space should be to protect,
protect it for what it is.
It shouldn't be used to make a sort of big ring
around a town or anything.
And I don't think that's what they're trying to do here,
but just the nature of the space that they identified.
identified but like I said it's still national landscapes it's still quite well protected.
At the hearing the examiner doesn't make any decisions on the day. They sort of take everyone's
statements, representations, ask a lot of questions.
It was very useful actually.
They don't write a hearing sort of report as such,
but it's contained within their final report,
which is an XR.
Yeah.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:44:00
One more question about the hearing, because again,
this is something that's sort of fairly new.
It's an interesting case.
Was that invite only?
or was that a sort of, you know, anybody could turn up and speak? And was it very
Officer - 0:44:22
particular, you know, tight agenda on that hearing? Yeah, it was held at the
town hall. Any members of the public could turn up to watch. The people
invited to speak were myself, for CDC, and the town council for proposing the plan
in the local green spaces and the two landowners and their planning agents for the local green
spaces.
And we only discussed the four local green spaces, very briefly the town centre boundary.
So yeah, it's a very tight agenda.
We did have lots of members of the public tune up, but I thought we'd sufficiently bored
them all by the morning break, so there weren't many there after that.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:45:19
That is very interesting.
The farmers...
Because it's a big thing that a town or a village designating these spaces, had they
spoken to the farmers before. I remember another village, there is a
particular field, absolutely example of what you're talking about. It's got
boundaries, it's surrounded, it's just a little sheep grazing field and it's very
in the middle of the village and can be seen as you drive past. So a typical
important green space. But the village did discuss, you know, they said we are
putting it in. And at that time I think the person who owned the farm was actually on
the parish council which kind of helped. But it's interesting that
towns and villages can say that is what we want to have in
our local plan. Presumably ask first.
Officer - 0:46:26
Yeah, so yes it's good to consult landowners as early as possible but it
doesn't really matter for the designation of local green space whether
it's private or public ownership whether there's access onto it or not. But yeah
obviously being the landowner so in this case for Chippenhampton, you know
that they've made representations, examiners considered them heavily
invited them specifically to the hearing so it's you know they've had a big part
in the process and ultimately in this case it's sort of fallen in their favour
because that's they were asking that they sort of be taken out of the plan.
There's just a couple more local green spaces to mention that policy so there's
one also on that side of Chipping Camden called the Clay which is a sort of
wooded area to an extent. So behind the houses. This one's a bit more tenuous. The
field.
This one's falling down because, you know, they were saying it's special because of the trees and
the landowners sort of made a case they've had,
although there's a TPO, they've had sort of tree surveys done and a lot of disease need to be taken out.
And they've had Forestry England make a report that
we sent to the examiner to consider to this process and they were suggesting how it could be managed and things.
And the point was sort of made, well, if the trees are the special element, if the trees are gone, is it still a special local green space?
So it's sort of fallen down on that.
I feel it's a bit tenuous because, I mean,
planning you can only really judge it
at this moment in time.
And you know, the trees are there
and the site does look nice.
And you know, they've consulted Poetry England
and you know, by name they're Poetry.
and they like to take out trees and replant them.
So I'm not sure whether someone like Natural England
might be the best to consult.
But anyway, I think the examiners considered it.
We've had the hearing, they've set out all their reasons.
They suggest that we drop it.
We still have a TPO on it.
there's still some element of control. I don't feel that there's enough to say that's a sort of wrong decision
and to sort of dismiss that one. But yes, a bit more tenuous I think than the previous look.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:50:00
Because you kind of feel that TPOs, sorry, tree preservation orders, and I'm sure anybody
watching absolutely knows that, but that's what I just say, you know, acronyms.
But you kind of expect a TPO to arrive on a tree that is already pretty mature and being
very significant or rare, you know, black poplars or something like that.
But you don't think of it as when the tree dies, what you need is a replacement for that
very mature tree, almost instantly back in the place.
So a TPO, it's that space then without...
I mean, not all the trees are going to go in one go, are they?
And that's the whole thing of management of woodlands and so on, you know, copses, is
that you manage those.
but a TPO doesn't enforce the management does it? You've just got to
hope that the landowner is equally values that piece of land. It's a bit of a
Officer - 0:51:02
strange TPO because the whole site is not specific to specific trees so yeah
again for the examiner I don't think it was cut and dry about what's special
what's staying, what trees are in, what are coming out, which ones contribute,
which ones don't. Because it wasn't cut and dry in that case I don't
think they've been able to say that this can definitely be a local green space.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:51:37
On the grounds that it's got a TPO covering the whole thing and that they
must have to the management of it must be covered you know the whoever owns
that has got this governed by what the TPO says so whatever they do to the
trees they have to apply to do it you know lifting crowns or whatever they're
doing and certainly if they disease and removal that has to be approved by the
council so we've already got that safeguarding in that place
Officer - 0:52:09
haven't we? So the landowners are, and it's been part of the process, working with forestry
England to come up with a sort of agreed management plan for the site and then yes they'd have
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:52:30
to individually apply for TPOs as they're necessary. So I'm content with that bit as
Thank you.
Officer - 0:52:34
So the last one, Local Green Space 22, the craves.
So this is the fourth one, sort of discussed at the hearing.
This one the examiner's recommending we retain.
They said it was unusual because it's an agricultural field, but within
in the urban form of Chipping Camden.
You know, development has sort of spread around it,
but that field that craves has sort of remained untouched.
So a bit unusual, but it's succinct,
sort of bounded by the stream at the bottom.
You get great views over the town, it's regular.
used footpaths and rights of way across the site. People do use it to get into the
towards the town centre and things. So that one again was considered because
the landowner made a representation against it. In that case they felt it met all the criteria.
I wasn't too much doubt with that one so that one's staying in. So for policy six
I would recommend that you recommend that we accept the deletion of three
local green spaces 1920 and 21 and we accept the retention of local green
space 22.
Officer - 0:54:33
So overall, that we accept the modifications and dismiss the one that we mentioned.
for, well partially, for policy four.
And then once we sort of accept those,
we have a 56 day window in which to hold
a referendum on the plan.
So we sort of,
the plan as per the annexes with these modifications,
we'll have to embed the two.
But yes, once you make the decision now, it will trigger a 56 day window to hold a referendum.
So we're proposing doing that on Thursday, 13th of August, because that is before a local plan consultation would start.
And having both at the same time might cause mass confusion.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:55:44
I was going to say are we crashing into local plan consultation because it's
that's that can be tricky but I'm sure I'm sure Chipping Camden will know
exactly you know what they're voting for here it's very very defined isn't it
Officer - 0:56:03
yeah so yeah we're proposing to do that and discuss that with electoral services
so they will run the referendum so we all eligible voters in Chippenhampton
parish occasionally an examiner can suggest that this might happen with
Simon Cester because some of the parts of the Simon Cester built form cross into
in the Sylington parish.
So when that comes around an examiner might say
some people from Sylington parish can vote
in the silent test referendum.
But in the case of Chippenhamden,
it's just the people in Chippenhamden parish
that would be voting on this one.
Yeah, so, yeah,
I happen to recommend a lot of occasions
from one to three, five, and six,
and as it says on our, we're watching some conclusions
of page 19, and to approve the referendum
on which it will be made in time
for those modifications and the timing
that you just said, the six day window,
and that's basically the complication
of those improvements.
Councillor Juliet Layton - 0:57:32
I'm happy to recommend the modifications that we've just been
discussing. So that's policies one, two, three, five and six were accepted by CDC
and integrated into the neighbourhood plan and also that modification four is
partially accepted and partially dismissed as we discussed earlier and
that's all been taken note by Dem Services here and to approve the
referendum on the Chipping Camden neighbourhood plan with those accepted
modifications. Thank you very much. Thank you.