Planning and Licensing Committee - Wednesday 10 June 2026, 2:00pm - Cotswold District Council Webcasting

Planning and Licensing Committee
Wednesday, 10th June 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 Ian Watson
  4. Councillor Nick Bridges
  5. Councillor Daryl Corps
  6. Councillor Michael Vann
  7. Councillor Julia Judd
  8. Councillor Ray Brassington
  9. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  10. Councillor Nikki Ind
  11. Councillor Paul Evans
  12. Councillor Dilys Neill
  13. Councillor Dilys Neill
  14. Councillor Dilys Neill
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Dilys Neill
  2. Julia Gibson, Officer
  3. Legal Services
  4. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  5. Officer
  6. Councillor Dilys Neill
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Dilys Neill
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Nikki Ind
  2. Councillor Dilys Neill
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Dilys Neill
  2. To confirm the minutes of 13 May 2026
    Status: In progress
  3. To confirm the minutes of 13 May 2026
    Status: Ended
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Ray Brassington
  2. Councillor Dilys Neill
  3. Councillor Ray Brassington
  4. Councillor Dilys Neill
  5. Councillor Ray Brassington
  6. Councillor Dilys Neill
Share this agenda point
  1. Officer
  2. Officer
  3. Councillor Dilys Neill
  4. Town/Parish Council
  5. Councillor Dilys Neill
  6. Objector
  7. Councillor Dilys Neill
  8. Objector
  9. Councillor Dilys Neill
  10. Ward Member
  11. Ward Member
  12. Councillor Dilys Neill
  13. Councillor Daryl Corps
  14. Councillor Dilys Neill
  15. Councillor Michael Vann
  16. Councillor Dilys Neill
  17. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  18. Councillor Dilys Neill
  19. Councillor Paul Evans
  20. Councillor Dilys Neill
  21. To Permit application 25/02687/FUL Land Parcel East of Willersey Business Park
    Status: In progress
  22. To Permit application 25/02687/FUL Land Parcel East of Willersey Business Park
    Status: Held
  23. Councillor Dilys Neill
  24. Councillor Julia Judd
  25. Officer
  26. Councillor Julia Judd
  27. Officer
  28. Councillor Julia Judd
  29. Officer
  30. Councillor Dilys Neill
  31. Councillor Daryl Corps
  32. Officer
  33. Councillor Daryl Corps
  34. Officer
  35. Councillor Dilys Neill
  36. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  37. Officer
  38. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  39. Officer
  40. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  41. Officer
  42. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  43. Councillor Ray Brassington
  44. Officer
  45. Councillor Ray Brassington
  46. Councillor Dilys Neill
  47. Councillor Nikki Ind
  48. Officer
  49. Councillor Julia Judd
  50. Officer
  51. Councillor Julia Judd
  52. Officer
  53. Councillor Julia Judd
  54. Officer
  55. Councillor Julia Judd
  56. Officer
  57. Councillor Daryl Corps
  58. Officer
  59. Councillor Daryl Corps
  60. Officer
  61. Councillor Dilys Neill
  62. Councillor Paul Evans
  63. Officer
  64. Councillor Dilys Neill
  65. Officer
  66. Councillor Dilys Neill
  67. Officer
  68. Councillor Dilys Neill
  69. Officer
  70. Councillor Dilys Neill
  71. Councillor Dilys Neill
  72. Councillor Ray Brassington
  73. Officer
  74. Councillor Dilys Neill
  75. Councillor Julia Judd
  76. Councillor Dilys Neill
  77. Councillor Ray Brassington
  78. Councillor Dilys Neill
  79. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  80. Councillor Dilys Neill
  81. To Permit application 25/02687/FUL Land Parcel East of Willersey Business Park
    Status: Ended
  82. Councillor Julia Judd
  83. Councillor Dilys Neill
  84. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  85. Councillor Dilys Neill
  86. Councillor Daryl Corps
  87. Councillor Dilys Neill
  88. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  89. Councillor Dilys Neill
  90. Councillor Nikki Ind
  91. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  92. Councillor Paul Evans
  93. Councillor Julia Judd
  94. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  95. Councillor Dilys Neill
  96. Councillor Julia Judd
  97. Councillor Dilys Neill
  98. Councillor Ray Brassington
  99. Councillor Dilys Neill
  100. To defer application 25/02687/FUL
    Status: In progress
  101. Councillor Dilys Neill
  102. To defer application 25/02687/FUL
    Status: Ended
  103. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  104. Councillor Dilys Neill
  105. Councillor Dilys Neill
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Dilys Neill
  2. Officer
  3. Officer
  4. Councillor Dilys Neill
  5. Applicant/Agent
  6. Councillor Dilys Neill
  7. Councillor Dilys Neill
  8. Councillor Nick Bridges
  9. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  10. Councillor Dilys Neill
  11. Councillor Daryl Corps
  12. Councillor Dilys Neill
  13. Councillor Julia Judd
  14. Councillor Dilys Neill
  15. To Permit application 25/03721/FUL Cutlers Field & Horcott Hill
    Status: In progress
  16. To Permit application 25/03721/FUL Cutlers Field & Horcott Hill
    Status: Ended
  17. Councillor Dilys Neill
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Dilys Neill
  2. Officer
  3. Councillor Dilys Neill
  4. Officer
  5. Councillor Dilys Neill
  6. Applicant/Agent
  7. Applicant/Agent
  8. Ward Member
  9. Councillor Dilys Neill
  10. Councillor Dilys Neill
  11. Councillor Paul Evans
  12. Officer
  13. Legal Services
  14. Councillor Dilys Neill
  15. Councillor Julia Judd
  16. Councillor Dilys Neill
  17. Officer
  18. Councillor Julia Judd
  19. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  20. Councillor Dilys Neill
  21. Councillor Daryl Corps
  22. Officer
  23. Councillor Dilys Neill
  24. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  25. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  26. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  27. Councillor Dilys Neill
  28. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  29. Councillor Julia Judd
  30. Officer
  31. Councillor Dilys Neill
  32. To Approve the recommendations around the Footpath Diversion Order Tetbury Upton Footpath
    Status: In progress
  33. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  34. To Approve the recommendations around the Footpath Diversion Order Tetbury Upton Footpath
    Status: Ended
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Dilys Neill
  2. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  3. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  4. Councillor Dilys Neill
  5. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  6. Councillor Dilys Neill
  7. Councillor Ray Brassington
  8. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  9. Councillor Dilys Neill
  10. Councillor Ian Watson
  11. Councillor Dilys Neill
  12. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  13. Councillor Dilys Neill
  14. Councillor Julia Judd
  15. Harrison Bowley, Planning
  16. Councillor Dilys Neill
  17. To Endorse the Local Enforcement Plan 2026-2028
    Status: In progress
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Ray Brassington
  2. Councillor Dilys Neill
  3. Councillor Ray Brassington
  4. Councillor Dilys Neill
  5. Councillor Ray Brassington
  6. Councillor Dilys Neill
  7. To Endorse the Local Enforcement Plan 2026-2028
    Status: Ended
  8. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  9. Councillor Dilys Neill
  10. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  11. Councillor Dilys Neill
  12. Councillor Julia Judd
  13. Councillor Julia Judd
  14. Councillor Dilys Neill
  15. Councillor Dilys Neill
  16. Councillor Dilys Neill
  17. Julia Gibson, Officer
  18. Councillor Dilys Neill
  19. Councillor Julia Judd
  20. Councillor Patrick Coleman
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Dilys Neill
Share this agenda point
  1. To approve the recommendations for appointments to the licensing sub-committees
    Status: In progress
  2. To approve the recommendations for appointments to the licensing sub-committees
    Status: Ended
  3. Councillor Julia Judd
  4. Councillor Dilys Neill
  5. Councillor Dilys Neill
  6. Councillor Dilys Neill
  7. Webcast Finished

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:00:00
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:00:00
Good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of Cotswold District Council Planning Committee.
I'd like to welcome all members of the public here.
Thank you very much for attending.
We're always pleased to see members of the public taking an interest here.
I'd also like to thank those who are watching at home.
I know there are people who watch every meeting and we're very pleased that you scrutinise us in this way
and we value your comments too.
Those of you who are here, please could you make sure that your phone is off or on silent
and that applies to members and officers as well as to members of the public who are watching.
When the vote is taken, we use the electronic voting method and this should become clear,
the votes should be displayed on the screen for people watching at home and you will also
Those of you who are here will see how we voted on the screens here.
Should this fail, and it hasn't failed recently, but should this electronic method fail, we
will resort to a show of hands.
Can I just remind members of the public that you shouldn't talk to members of the committee
or interrupt proceedings.
So, maybe that your ward member is here, but it's not appropriate to speak to them.
And please don't interrupt proceedings.
The public speakers are allowed to speak, but nobody else.
Okay, so public speakers, thank you very much for attending.
You each get three minutes to speak.
The ward members get five minutes.
Do we have a clarification on that?
Because I think Councillor Stowe.
Five minutes each.
Oh, you get five minutes each.
Gosh, that's a big bite of the cherry then, isn't it?
Great.
But members of the public who are speaking
are public speakers, you get three minutes to speak.
We're pretty tight on that.
and my colleague Councillor Watson will chop you off at three minutes. We will
allow you to finish a sentence but we won't allow you to
carry on with several more paragraphs after three minutes. So please be as
concise as possible. Right I think that's all. So now we're going to introduce
ourselves. I'm Dyliss Neil. I'm currently chair of planning committee and I
represent the ward of Stow -on -the -Walls in the north of the district.
Councillor Ian Watson - 0:02:42
Good afternoon, my name is Ian Watson, I'm the vice chair representing
Tepritt in the south of the district.
Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:02:55
I'm Councillor Nick Bridges, I represent Watermore,
which is where we are today.
Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:03:01
Councillor Daryl Corr and I represent Mortimer Marsh which is in the far north of Cotswolds.
Councillor Michael Vann - 0:03:07
Michael Van, Fairford North.
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:03:16
Julia Judd, Ermine Ward.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:03:19
Ray Brasington, Syrinsester.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:03:23
Patrick Coleman I represent the village of Stratton in the town of Syrinsester
Councillor Nikki Ind - 0:03:30
Councillor Paul Evans - 0:03:35
Nikki and I represent Tethbury Easton Warall. Paul Evans I represent the Beaches
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:03:40
ward in Syrinsester. Thank you very much so we're a good cross -section across the
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:03:51
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:01
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:08
I think you should stay where you are as you're not taking part in the debate today.
Can we have officers?
Could I ask officers to introduce themselves now?
Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:04:33
Legal Services - 0:04:38
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:04:43
Officer - 0:04:47
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:53
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:59
have so there's no substitutions then okay thank you do any members have a
declaration of interest they'd like to make Councillor int and thank you chair
Councillor Nikki Ind - 0:05:11
yes agenda item 10 I must declare an interest and not take part in any vote
since supporting the original application for the GP surgery and
associated development which included the temporary diversion of footpath I've
attended meetings the ground -opening ceremony met with the developers and
This interaction could be perceived as a possibility of bias or predetermination.
I took advice from our legal advisor, Marie Barnes, and after speaking as a ward member,
I will leave the chamber.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:05:39
Thank you very much for that.
Anyone else got a declaration of interest they would like to make?
Do any officers have a declaration of interest that they need to make?
No?
That's great.
In that case, we will move on to the minutes.
have you all had a look at the minutes
from our previous meeting of a month ago?
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:06:04
If there are no proposed amendments,
would somebody like to propose that we accept the minutes?
Councillor End, do we have a seconder?
Councillor Judd.
Okay, we'll vote on the confirmation of the minutes
of the 13th of May.
Okay, there are six in favour, three abstentions.
we seem to be missing one and I can't see the names haven't come up David David
falls okay yes has everybody registered their vote
somebody's still missing never mind I think we're adequate we've got six in
and three abstentions so those minutes are passed. Okay so moving on to the next
item which is chairs announcements. Thank you very much to Harrison for organising
the recent planning excellent planning training and I think all of us here have
either came to the training last week or had had an update today so thank you
very much for doing that. Harrison has suggested that we have a
rolling programme of supplementary training for planning. The rules change all the time,
do they not? So he will put forward a programme of updates on items such as permissive development
rights and various other suggestions. If you have got anything that you would particularly
like to see on that training agenda please let Harrison know. Thank you very
much. We also, I'm also aware that there are a couple of people here who need
their licencing training which is Councillor Ihne and Councillor Evans and
that's going to be arranged probably sometime next month. I personally
wouldn't mind having an update on licencing. I think all the rest of us
have done the licencing training but it would be useful to have an update. Once the date
has been established which Councillor Evans can both attend, the democratic services will
invite the rest of us here to attend. Okay. I think that's all the notices I have. Are
any public questions? There is one member question from Councillor Breslington. Would
you like to put the question, Councillor Breslington? Yes, please, thank you, Chair. I wonder if
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:09:11
someone could give us an update about the outstanding problem regarding Wrencombe airfield.
It's something that's been going on for, it seems like decades. And I think we'd all benefit
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:09:25
from an update. Thank you. So I've got a response for you Councillor Brassington
which is this the council's planning enforcement team is continuing to
investigate the reported breach of legal obligations as a high priority with the
matter being actively progressed by senior officers. This will soon determine
whether future action is expedient and proportionate. Members will understand
that planning enforcement investigations need to be managed carefully and in line with the
Council's legal duties. So it's important that nothing is done that could infect the
integrity of the investigation or limit the Council's ability to take formal action if
necessary. So that's as far as we can tell you at the moment. Do you have a supplementary
question?
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:10:12
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:10:16
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:10:17
Do we have any idea what soon means? I mean, as I said, it's been going on for like decades
and we keep telling people that we are working on it and it is going to be activated, but
all the time the complainers are suffering the noise flying around. It is intolerable
for them. I think we have had it for a long, long time. So, as soon as it can be quickest
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:10:38
the better. Thank you.
Thank you very much. We will try and get a response from the officers dealing with that
to complain because we do realise the huge amount of public interest there is in this
matter. Thank you very much for bringing that question. Are there any other questions? In
that case, we are going to move on to the schedule of applications. The first application
is land parcel east of Willersie Business Park.
This is for a residential development
comprising 60 dwellings with associated road access,
parking and servicing, open space, landscaping,
and drainage infrastructure.
The case officer is Martin Perks.
The ward members are Councillor Bloomfield
and Councillor Stowe.
And the recommendation is to permit subject to no objection
from biodiversity officer and associated conditions
and completions of a section 106 legal agreement
covering matters such as affordable housing,
self -build custom build plots,
biodiversity net game monitoring,
financial contributions to education and library services
and Willers -Lee parish council.
It's a bit of a mouthful.
Can I ask Mr. Pax to give us an update?
Yes, thank you, Chair. Just for clarification, all members should now have an updated collection
of plans which are accurately showing what the proposal is in terms of site layouts and
Officer - 0:12:23
play areas and et cetera. Unfortunately, the schedule that went out to members last week,
I believe, didn't photocopy the plans correctly, so they were a bit confusing. So the plans
on the website are correct, so they're clear for the public and anybody who clicked on
the website. It's just a package that went to members, didn't include, it included extracts
of plans, not the whole plan. So hopefully that shows the site in more detail now. Also,
I've also added a page in front of members earlier. We had a response from Gloucester
County Council Highways this morning, just providing clarification over the parish council's
requests for a bus shelter. They consider that wouldn't be justified in relation to
the one, the bus stop next to the recreation ground, but contribution or upgrades to bus
stops on Main Street could potentially be justified. But that's something we'd have
to discuss during the course of the application, I believe.
In terms of other pages, additional pages, the ones published on 8th of June. Page 3
includes correspondence from the parish council
about the provision of a bus shelter.
Pages four to seven are a further level of objection
from the local residents.
Page seven to eight includes general comments
from a local resident as well.
And pages nine to 11, or just over into 12,
includes further correspondence
from Willys and Parish Council. So hopefully you had a chance to look at those but I'll
give you a minute just to quickly have a scan over those documents including the plans and
then I'll go through the slides.
.
.
.
.
Officer - 0:16:49
Thank you, Chair.
I'll go through the slides for members who weren't on the site visit last Wednesday.
Let's put the site in context. It's a linear strip of land located on the northern north -eastern
edge of the village, the Willacy, which is a principal settlement in the local plan.
Just for clarification, the yellow dot to the south -west is the site of the 30 houses
at Folly View, which committee members considered a few months ago. So it just puts the two
sites in context in terms of their relationship to one another and the village. Again, the
application site in red, it's essentially an agricultural field at the moment with some
old former buildings in the southern part of the site. Again, showing the site in context.
The green stripper lamp to the west of the or the left of the red line, the application
site is part of the allocated employment residential site and that's the permission that's referred
to as the auto sleepers development. That's already got permission for development, although
it's not yet been built out. This shows the two together. So you see the application site
in colour on the right with the auto sleepers will exceed industrial extension on the left
and how the two would relate to one another. And again, the plans on the left are the approved
plans for the Willersey Autosleepers planning permission and again shows it in context with
the application current proposal. These were the type of buildings that were allowed on
the Autosleepers site to the west of the application site. The bottom building is an office building,
the linear building is just a commercial processes building, canteen and offices, so it gives
an indication of how they would look. This is the allocation in the local plan in purple
pink. The blue dashed line is the established employment estate which is with housing along
its western edge and to its south. There is already existing housing in close proximity
to the industrial estate. Again, indication of house types proposed and a mix of styles
including some bungalows but predominantly two -storey of a very redolent of traditional
building styles that you see now fairly commonplace across the district. And again, the house
type's been proposed.
Looking at the site itself, looking northwards from the southern edge of the site, the paler
green paler grass area to the left is the beyond the post and wye fence is the site
of the water sleepers development. So the housing development would be looking directly
in front of you and to the right. And this is looking from the site entrance into the
site. No reference has been made about allotments. The overgrown area there is historically where
the allotments have been. Again, looking north westwards across the site from its eastern
boundary towards the industrial estate. There's a slight evidence of Ridge and Furrow, but
it's not as pronounced as on the field to the east, which I'll show in a moment. And
this is a view from the field to the east of the application site. So the housing site
is to the left of the hedgerow that you see. The Ridge and Furrow is fairly pronounced
on the field to the east, so it's quite a different character, the field to the east,
compared to the application site.
The public right of way that runs directly
in front of you across that field,
parallel with the eastern boundary of the application site.
And that's the edge of the industry, the state at present.
This is the area referred to as allotments
and historically has been used,
but that notice was served on any remaining
persons of interest in 2023.
The top left photo is looking westwards along the B4632 to the village centre and the bottom
right photo is looking back towards the application site from the mini roundabout. Highway improvement
works are proposed along that road to upgrade the pavements and make them wider and also
put in a tactile crossing to improve public and pedestrian access from the site to the
centre of the village. At the moment, we've got two sets of highway plans and highway
works. One on the right relates to the auto sleepers approved entrance and that hasn't
yet been built out. So if that doesn't go ahead, then the plan on the left takes account
of that and we'll make provision through our footpath across that entrance in the event
the auto sleeper site doesn't go ahead. So the condition covers either or, so we do
ensure that the highway improvements will take into account both circumstances.
Looking back across Willa Sea from St. Mary Parish Church direction to public rights of
way again gives you an indication roughly of where the site is in the context of the
village seen as part of a larger landscape view rather than isolation or separate from
the village.
This is just the approach into the eastern edge of the village. Existing housing lying
to the south of B4632. Opposed housing would be to the right of that hedgerow. There is
far more screening of this development than there is of the existing housing as you approach
the village from the east.
But thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:22:44
Thank you very much.
Can I now ask the public speakers to come forward?
So for the town council or parish council,
could I ask Mr. O 'Donohue to come forward
and the objector, Alistair McGregor.
Can I remind you again that you both have three minutes to speak and we will advise
you when you have come to the end of that time. Mr O 'Donohue, would you like to start?
Thanks.
Town/Parish Council - 0:23:56
So, current planning applications will increase the village population by a quarter, with
this development accounting for half of it. The parish council does not object in principle,
but asks that it be deferred for evidence on three issues, noise in the public areas,
the 106 leisure contribution and the status of the land as an open space.
First noise from the factory next door, which has permission to double in size.
The noise assessment states that some houses will need soundproofing and some gardens must
have acoustic fencing.
But there's little and no evidence about the playground or open space, so we question whether
these will be usable.
Second the 8 ,000 pound 106 leisure contribution.
Our recreation ground is only 175 metres from the site entrance and the noisy
leap which is only for very young children is 275 metres. So for many of the houses the
wreck will be closer and there will clearly be increased usage.
You recently approved the Folly View application in Willowsie which also included a leap and
open space with an £8 ,000 contribution for 30 dwellings. This application is for 60.
A recent development in Broadway had a settlement of 137 ,000 for 60 homes.
So, where is the evidence that only 8 ,000 is reasonable?
Where's the methodology?
Where's the calculation?
Where's the justification?
Third allotments.
The 1925 Act defines an allotment more broadly than the report's 1922 Act and includes land
used for farming.
These allotments were not abandoned or overgrown, but were simply used as plots of farmland
to graze animals. On a one -year lease, someone is going to try and grow vegetables and fruit.
Our legal advice is that under MPPF guidelines they could well constitute an open space of
public value and require replacement. Private ownership and access are irrelevant. The MPPF
cannot be avoided by evicting the tenants, the POS is not equivalent usage and allocation
doesn't override MPPF. The key issue is need and demand, which our horticultural society
absolutely can show.
This land was glee -blanned for centuries and allotments for generations. It warrants a
more detailed assessment of need and demand than aerial photos, before concluding that
after all this time, no longer has any public value.
So please defer for evidence on the ledger contribution.
Explain 8 ,000 pounds.
Noise, if gardens need soundproofing,
why are the public areas usable?
And allotments, where's the evidence
that they lack public value?
Thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:26:47
Thank you very much.
Could you switch off your microphone then?
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Mr McGregor, could you switch your microphone on?
Yes, please.
Perfect.
Objector - 0:27:02
Thank you. Madam Chairman, committee members, the village of Willersie has since 2025 received a number of prospective and agreed development applications.
The first application, 20 -026 -87, so full, is the one you are considering at the moment and consists of 60 houses.
You have recently dealt with application 2502983 stroke out, which is 30 houses on land north
of Folly View, which was granted subject to certain conditions.
There's a further application 2601075 stroke PLP, which is nine houses west of Folly View.
And you may know that there's a consultation by Newlands Home of houses, the development
to houses at Willow or the Quinary, consisting of 40 houses north of Colin Lane, a potential
of 139 houses in or around the village, all of which share the same inadequate sewerage
infrastructure and Badsie Pumping Station, the inadequacy of which was demonstrated in
January, March of this year, although it's gone back a great many years before that,
by continuous sewage flooding that was only partially contained by Seven Trends emergency measures.
Indeed, Seven Trends have accepted that the infrastructure is inadequate for the current houses, let alone another 139.
We understand that the Seven Trends have an obligation to connect,
but the reality is that such a situation dooms a substantial part of the village
sewage running down their street, manhole covers being forced off and excrement flooding into their gardens.
Now, there is a solution to this and I approached this before I'd seen Mr Perks' advisory to the committee.
And that, of course, is to follow the preconditions, the Grampian conditions, that were in fact allocated to the development at Folling View.
My application was to be, would you please adopt exactly the same preconditions for this application that we are hearing today.
So you can imagine my delight and surprise when I saw that Mr Perks had already adopted it.
It is now in full at 10 .86 with exactly the same conditions as applied to Follick View.
So I'd like to adopt those and recommend them to you and that is my application. Thank you very much.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:29:58
Thank you very much to both speakers for keeping well into time.
And if you'd like to return to your seats I can ask the ward members to come forward.
Objector - 0:30:08
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:30:27
Thank you very much. My understanding is you have five minutes each, so you have quite
a double act here. Are you going first, Councillor Bloomfield?
Ward Member - 0:30:39
Good afternoon. I am Gina Bloomfield, one of the district councillors for the Camden
and Vail Ward. I will not be speaking for five minutes, I was only aware of this
shortly before the meeting and hadn't prepared more, but what I've
discussed this application with my co -counsellor Tom Stowe and I fully
support the comments that he will be making on the details of this planning
application and I know I can rely on him to have done those thoroughly and
completely. But before he does so I would just like to vocalise the concerns of
many residents in Willersie, about the extremely dangerous highways access, lack of infrastructure
in the village, the lack of local employment opportunities and the very serious worries
about the existing overwhelmed capacity for sewage and drainage in Willersie. This has
been just referred to now. I also heard the comments that Martin Perks has included the
recommendations about granting conditions to cover these.
Finally, what I'm asking to ask is should the committee agree to the Planning Officer's
recommendations to approve? I believe strong conditions throughout the planning application
should be put in place to ensure that the issues are addressed which are of the greatest
concern to the people in Willasee. Thank you.
Ward Member - 0:32:12
Yes, thank you chair and thank you colleagues on the planning committee for considering
this application today and to Martin Perks for preparing this detailed report.
Concerns regarding this development stem from a simple underlying matter and that is that
future developments, regardless of whether a site has previously allocated the local
plan or not, cannot make the current infrastructure issues faced by Willersey worse.
I last spoke here in February when the application at the other end of the village was presented.
I highlighted the significant issues regarding sewage and drainage in the village and its hugely detrimental impact on residents well -being
As a reminder we're talking about sewage a foot deep in the streets
Gardens left strewn with human waste and houses unable to use their toilets for 48 hours
It was established at that meeting that a village having a totally dysfunctional sewage network is not grounds for refusal of further development alone
7Trent has a statutory duty to connect new developments to the sewer network.
However, despite being aware of existing capacity and infrastructure issues for well over a
decade and despite being notified of further proposed developments, 7Trent's own formal
response to this application states that it,
"...cannot say with any certainty what may need to be done or when any necessary works
may be completed."
This suggests 7Trent has no plan, no timetable and no identified solution to resolve these ongoing and future issues.
While the proposed range conditions appear robust on paper, I have real concerns about how they will be enforced in practise
as the relentless pressure to deliver new homes comes up against the real physical pressure of removing poo from those homes.
The cumulative impact of these new developments on top of the existing issues has the potential
to make everyday life in Willersie unbearable and I have no faith in 7 Trent to act accordingly.
There are well -founded concerns regarding the proposed access arrangements and the implications
for highway safety.
The proposed access would emerge directly onto the B4632.
This is a busy, rural through route, formerly the A46.
After initially recommending refusal, Gloucestershire County Council's Highways Officer has ultimately
raised no objection. It is unclear whether this revised position followed a site visit
or was based solely on a desk -based assessment. Having visited the site personally, I am deeply
alarmed by the proposed access arrangements. Looking out, there are blind bends in both
directions. Whilst technically visibility displays can be achieved, compliance with
minimum standards alone does not necessarily make a junction safe in practise. Vehicles
approaching from the Stratford direction will have very limited time to react to vehicles
slowing down to turn right into the site or to vehicles emerging from the development
onto the highway.
To attempt to mitigate these dangers there is a proposed new 40mph buffer zone to the
east. While this is welcome the current speed limit is routinely ignored and it would be
impossible to reliably enforce such a limit in this location. Members should carefully
consider the consequences of approving access arrangements in a location that
presents such clear risks. There is a genuine likelihood that future
collisions or near misses will be associated with this junction. Paragraph
116 of the MPPF states that the development should be refused on
highways grounds if there be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.
The proposed access fails to provide a safe and suitable means of access as
required by local plan policy INF4. The proposed highway arrangements do not
adequately mitigate the clear and foreseeable dangers associated with this
junction. I therefore urge the committee to either defer determination of this
application pending the submission of revised access proposals or to impose
further conditions to ensure that demonstrably safer access solution is
brought forward before any development proceeds. There are specific mechanisms
that LPAs can use to lessen the impact of developments and make new development
more acceptable to existing residents. One of these options is section 106
contributions. Willesee Parish Council have been proactive in putting forward
requests from early on in this process. The outcome of these discussions are
included in these papers. It'd be useful to hear more about the process and
discussions that are involved in these negotiations and whether the lack of a
formal section 106 policy in the local plan is potentially impacting on the
level of support communities receive. This is particularly pertinent given
the level of development which is likely across the district in coming years. So
To sum up, the residents of Willasee are not necessarily opposed to development in principle.
What they are asking is that development does not come at the cost of their safety, their
health or their quality of life.
Please consider the three main issues I have raised today.
A totally broken drainage system with no credible plan for resolution, access arrangements that
present a genuine risk to highway safety and the need for meaningful section 106 contributions.
I urge the committee to weigh these matters carefully before reaching a decision on whether proposals for this site should be considered acceptable
in their current form. Thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:37:15
Thank you very much both ward members and thank you for both being here.
So we had a site inspection briefing, a very interesting site inspection briefing here
last week and I'd like to ask the members who attended to give their views.
Councillor Cawle, you were there were you not?
Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:37:41
I was indeed and it was quite a miserable wet day wasn't it?
I think one thing that became immediately apparent in the site visit is first of all
it's not a remote field. It is just on the edge of the village. Also I think
when you, I think being actually on the site visit you realise it's a real world
of difference between looking at access drawings on documents for a planning
committee and actually being there in person and standing on the side of the
road or actually trying to walk along the side of the road. It was quite,
you know, you looked at it when you got there and you thought this is a nice little
acquire entrance onto Willersley, but there was a lot of traffic. I realised that
one of the ward members has already mentioned that, but there was a
lot of traffic and a lot of fast traffic and it wasn't just cars, there were also
quite big industrial trucks going on there because you know that area is not
it's not just a quiet little village there are lots of businesses operating
in and around Willersley. So that wasn't, and when we got to the
The entrance as well.
I mean, even looking at the drawings here, it doesn't really give you that,
the bend that comes around into Willersley there.
Cars do really come around there very quickly,
and it does feel much of a sharper bend when you're actually there in person.
So that's regarding the entrance.
And we actually saw a tractor trying to pull out from the field,
which took him quite a while to make sure that it was safe to pull out heading into Willersley.
I mean the field itself, as I said, it definitely doesn't feel like an isolated location outside of the village.
It felt very much attached to the village and obviously next to where auto sleepers development sounds like it would be taking place.
It felt a lot bigger as well, a very long and thin stretch of land.
And obviously it's adjacent to some much more interesting fields as well, those classic
farrows that we've seen from like mediaeval farming, like really quite beautiful landscape
actually to the next field.
Whereas this field was actually quite unremarkable and flat, I think, even in the rain.
I noticed a mention of allotments.
I didn't see any allotments.
I saw a lot of overgrown brambles as we went in.
I couldn't see personally, I couldn't see where anyone had been using those for any purpose and for a considerable amount of time.
I don't know if those are my main observations anywhere at this point from the site visit.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:40:20
Thank you very much for your helpful contribution.
Councillor van you're also there.
Councillor Michael Vann - 0:40:25
Yes, thank you.
Highway access, two words.
If we hadn't been fleet nimble afoot, would have been serious trouble because they came at speed substantially in excess of any speed limit, present or proposed.
and the idea of having residential housing there on that bend without proper highway works is to my mind unthinkable.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:41:08
Thank you very much, Councillor Coleman.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:41:15
Thank you. Our attention was very focused after the incident has been described on how
the access could be ensured to be safe. I think that is something that will need some
attention during our discussion. Apart from that, colleagues' comments are clearly accurate.
yes there's no trace of the allotments it's just brambles now
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:41:44
Councillor Paul Evans - 0:41:47
council Evans thank you chair yes I looked at the the road number that goes
past the site and I think the b4632 is quite deceptive given at one stage we
nearly lost the account of the Coleman to a triple articulated truck coming out
to the village at significantly above whatever the speed limit
happens to be there.
It certainly wasn't 30, and it definitely wasn't 40 either.
And it turns out that I think that that Councillor Stowe
at the time pointed out that in fact that is the old A46
that runs from Cheltenham up through to Stratford.
You've shown some work.
Anyway, it's an old main road,
and it showed all the hallmarks of being an old major route
with the amount of traffic that was going on
the speed it was going. It seemed to me that it was being used as a as a rat run
by articulated goods as it goes past. Walking along the road edge to the site
was quite intimidating actually. You could feel
trucks coming up behind us and really hesitant to try and come past us
until of course they saw the bend and how slowly we were moving and just decided to
So I think to echo colleagues comments on the highway access it needs significant work.
I would be deeply concerned about the safety of that exit onto that road just looking at it in my own personal experience.
The allotments were nicely overgrown at the time. I couldn't comment whether they had been allotments.
It was difficult to see. Yeah, the road access is worrying.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:43:27
Thank you. Thank you. Apart from myself, was there anyone else that I've missed? I
don't think so. So my observations are that similar to my colleagues, so yes it
was a little bit alarming to be walking along the road to try and get into the
access point, although I do understand from the plans that there's plans to
improve that around that junction and to put in a footpath which would be
absolutely essential because nobody would want to be walking into the
village along that road particularly if you had a small children or a buggy or
something with you so that the access is a is a problem and the field itself as
has been described is it's not a great particularly beautiful field and it is
that are butted on one side by this rather ugly industrial estate. On the other side,
to the east of it, is this really very beautiful field with the ridge and furrow in it, but
the field that's proposed for development is not a hugely attractive asset, I would
have said. And also, we walked a little way out of the village to look back on it, and
And it really looked as if, and we walked along the public right of way that went through
the ridge and furrow fields to the east.
And because of the modest height of the buildings and the current vegetation, I don't think
it would have a huge impact on the view to walk back, looking back towards the village.
So I agree that probably the highways issue is something that needs hammering out.
We didn't unfortunately, we didn't walk down to have a look at the recreation ground because
I think that would have been quite helpful just to see exactly how far it is and what
facilities it provides.
So yeah, so I'll be interested to hear what comes out of the discussion.
and I'm now through the floor open to questions.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:45:35
Councillor Judd.
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:45:40
Thank you, I wasn't on the site visit,
but I've got quite a lively image in my mind
of what it was like.
There was a little bit of discrepancy
between what Martin Perks said
and what you said about the footpath.
Martin said it was a widened pavement.
Well, looking at the very last photograph of your presentation, Martin, that road already
looks quite narrow and there are houses with gardens in front of them. If you whiten the
pavement, are they whitening it into the road or are they taking land off those houses?
And is it a footpath or pavement?
Officer - 0:46:18
Just to clarify, thank you, Chair. Just to clarify, if you look on the plans, I think
on page 101 or 94. The development site, the proposed entrance is on the eastern side of
the application site. So the front of the application site, which extends to the west
of the entrance, the footpath will be provided there and that will be set back into the site
about five to 10 metres back into the site. So nobody would have to walk along the roadside.
The issue is that people, when we did the site visit, were walking along the carriageway.
They were working on the footpath, they were working on the carriageway.
And that is the location where this footpath set back into the site will be.
The footpath to the west of that is the photographs I showed you earlier.
That will be wide and slightly.
Some of it will be able to go back to the left, some will go to the right.
It shouldn't narrow the carriageway width to any significant degree.
But that, we all walked along that and there was no issues as far as I'm aware.
The issue is when we went into the site, the western part of the site, and then we have
choice of walking through the field but it was long grass and pouring with rain or walking
along the road and people chose to walk along the road and then that's when a couple of
HGVs came along. So that was understandably a bit hairy at that particular time but people
were walking along the carriageway which isn't going to be the case if the scheme goes ahead
because the scheme makes provision for a safe access within the site for half the length
and the remainder would be just the upgrading of existing pavements plus a tactile crossing
plus the reduction in speed limit to the east, which will give that transition from, rather
than going from 60 to 30, you go 60, 40, 30, there is more of a transition in speeds there
as well, which will help to reduce things.
I mean, the speed surveys that have been done indicate average speed is about 36, 37 mile
an hour.
So I don't think that's particularly excessive.
It is above the 30, but not significantly above it, especially since this is quite close
to the 60 mile an hour boundary anyway.
But yeah, I mean, the applicant's done detailed
speed surveys, traffic transport statements
in terms of taking into account
the auto sleepers development as well.
Highways wanted a certain separation distance
between the auto sleepers entrance and this entrance
for highway safety purposes ironically,
given what you're saying.
So there has to be this certain degree of separation.
It can't be put closer to the auto sleepers entrance.
The site is allocated for housing as well and highways are happy that it is safe when
you put in all the extra highway improvement works as well.
So all around from a technical point of view and a professional point of view coming from
the relevant body who deals with this, they are satisfied that it is safe if all these
measures are put in place.
I can understand at the moment when you are doing on a wet day, walking along the carriageway
of B road, it's not ideal.
It's not going to give you a true impression of what the development will be once it's
built, but subject to all those measures, we believe that that is acceptable.
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:49:21
Quickly come back on that. So, I mean that covers the footpaths to the east and footpaths
to the west, so they go into the village. And my other question is would bicycles be
allowed on that footpath? Because if you're building family houses, you're providing space
for children, children like to be on bicycles and in my experience, children like to be
independent, free and go off on their own and don't necessarily do while their parents
advise them.
Officer - 0:49:48
I can't comment on parental responsibility.
So are bicycles allowed on the footpaths?
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:49:58
Do we know that?
Officer - 0:49:59
Within the site, yes, there would be nothing to stop that.
On the pavement, on the first part of the adopted highway, then it's an offence to obviously
cycle on the footpath.
It's a relatively short distance.
It's flat and it's longer be a B road.
Yeah, I can't comment on that other than again,
highways considered that is suitable.
Very much about third or half the distance
will be along the footpath within the site
rather than along the carriageway itself.
Thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:50:30
Councillor Caul.
Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:50:33
Obviously, there's been quite a lot of talk
about highway safety and highways haven't objected to this do we do we
know exactly what evidence they have been looking at and have they actually
done a I think Councillor Stowe mentioned have they actually visited
Officer - 0:50:57
the sighting person or have they just looked at technical drawings I can't
comment on whether the highway office has been to the site I don't know I'm
afraid all I know is that there was quite lengthy discussions when we dealt
with the auto sleepers development in terms of access arrangements there and
whether that could be one entrance for both developments that was rolled out at
the time. Highways were then have always said that they want a second entrance to
be this sort of distance away from water sleepers so where this entrance is is
based on what highway information and highway officers have always advised.
They've had quite the County Council had quite long involvement in this
particular area both with the auto sleepers development and this
development and and the applicants provided detailed transport statements
and assessments which have taken into account vehicle movements and servicing and visibility
and speeds and they consider the details ought to be acceptable from a highway safety standpoint.
So on that grounds we wouldn't be able to, from an officer point of view, we wouldn't
be able to sustain an objection on highway safety grounds.
Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:51:55
And the only footpath entrance into the proposed development is along the main road. There
Officer - 0:52:03
isn't another one at the bottom of the development itself.
There's two entrances.
The main vehicle entrance to the east, which I guess people could walk out of if they wanted
to, to cross the road to go over to the right of way to the south.
But the principal entrance, which would take you to the village, would be in the southwestern
corner of the application site, which would link into the existing pavement.
So you wouldn't have to walk along the carriageway, it would just link directly into the pavement
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:52:33
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:52:40
that already exist. Thank you. Councillor Coleman. Thank you, Chair. When we were there,
we crossed the road and we walked along a public footpath to the church and the village
school. And it's occurred to me that that might be a very safe route once you've got
over the road and short route to get children of primary school age 2 to primary school.
I can't quite remember where we crossed the road, but what I'm not clear about is how
we can achieve safety for people crossing the road there, particularly children who
may or may not be accompanied. So was it directly opposite one of the accesses to the site or
was it a little bit set one side or the other?
That's the first question.
The main vehicle entrance is where we went into
and out of the site after we walked down the road.
It's just about 10, 20 metres to the east of that.
And then there's a lay -by with a field gate
and a footpath gate, wasn't there?
So it's just about 10, 20 metres to the east
of the proposed vehicle entrance.
And then you can walk along the top of the ridge
and far out to get to the church.
It does provide an alternative option,
but in winter it probably wouldn't be great,
because it would be a bit wet and muddy.
But it does give you an alternative option
to get to the village rather than walking back
along the main road.
Thank you, yes, it seems to me that we need, I think,
leave it to comments, yes, sir.
What was my other question?
We have long contributions in our supplementary documents from what appear to be quite learned
if not expert people and the parish council as well.
It seems to me this is our only opportunity to ask you questions on this.
I will do it as simply as possible.
I think it is the parish council saying we are not asking for anything like enough in
money for 106 developments for recreation ground. I think that's on
page 11 question 2 .2 at 2 .1 and then 2 .2 rather confusing is their evidence for
that 8 ,000 is not enough and they should be paying 72 grammes and 90 grand. There's a
separate point that follows about Cilium 106 you can probably cover for us and
And then if I could, with the indulgence of the chair,
save another question for the even longer question
from the, it's listed as an additional objection
on page four and carries through five and six
and half, most of the way down to seven.
There are points in there I think would be helpful
if you could deal with them.
I'm sure you'll be able to deal with them briefly.
Officer - 0:55:38
When we get requests for financial contributions from parish councils, although to be fair
we don't get many requests from parish councils, this will be fair to Mr O 'Donoghue, who is
very passionate about this, which is fine, I've got no issues with that and I fully understand
where he's coming from, but we have to work within certain guidelines and the legislation
regarding when we can request money
and it has to be justified in terms of what happens
in this is the parish council would put forward
certain requests, we pass those onto the developer,
the developer will come back and there's a to and fro
and a negotiation over what can be considered
to be a reasonable amount.
It has to be necessary to make the development acceptable
in planning terms and directly related to it.
In this instance, we think the 120 ,000 pounds
towards the village hall is reasonable,
60 ,000 was obtained from the Folly View development.
The Folly View development also got 10 ,000 pounds
towards the cemetery and 8 ,000 pounds
towards recreation ground.
So the 80 ,000 pounds of parish council from that,
this scheme, the applicant didn't want to make
a contribution to recreation,
but has agreed to pay the 8 ,000.
So they get 128 ,000 on top of any sale money.
The sale money potentially for this development,
which would go to the parish would be about 70 ,000 pounds
on top of that.
and I think from Folly View the parish would get about 30, 35 ,000 as well.
So when you add all that together it comes to about 300 ,000 pounds.
In terms of the difference why 8 ,000 here has been accepted and even though it's twice the number of houses,
the open space in this site is quite larger than what was proposed at Folly View.
We think this development is actually fairly well self -contained in terms of the public play area,
it's got quite a lot of equipment and also it's got quite a big kick about dog walking area
open space area which in itself could predominantly serve the development.
Therefore the question you've got to ask is how many people from this development
would then go and use the recreation grant and while we think that some
people may go there occasionally the bulk of people would focus their
recreation within this particular site which would negate therefore the need to
provide a significant contribution to the recreation grant. The eight thousand
I think is a reasonable amount gives the Carriage Council something just to cater
for it. But if you're talking about children, I mean, the County Council have indicated
that it would generate eight, eight, 11 to 16 year olds. It's not a significant number
of children that would potentially go to the recreation ground play area. The player equipment
here could potentially serve all the under 11 year olds. So again, there would be less
need for those to go and use the facilities play equipment in the recreation ground. So
on that basis, we think the 8 ,000 is a reasonable amount in this instance, bearing in mind what
has been proposed by the developer as part of the whole. Hopefully that explains that.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:58:33
If I could just, Chair, thank you. I think the rest of the main other point made by the
parish council concerns allotments. Is it actually the case, as I think you did say
to us and it seems right to me, that once a place has stopped being allotments for a
significant period of time, it is not really correct to treat it as an allotment needing
money. Am I being unfair to the town council? It just seems to me to be stretching a bit
to say there should be money for allotments when the allotments have gone.
Officer - 0:59:07
Essentially there's basically a distinction between allotments that are provided by a
local authority and ones that are provided by a private landowner. If you're provided
by a local authority then there's certain processes you have to go if you want to end
that use. You have to go to the Secretary of State and get his agreement and serve notice
on people. And also if people come forward, there's enough people who want allotments,
then you parish council who were the body responsible for adding allotments in terms
of local authorities, they'd have to provide land for those people or make reasonable endeavours
to find such land. It's different if it's private land. All you have to do, my understanding,
is serve notice on the tenant or the person has an interest and give them 12 months notice.
This has to be done within a certain framework,
but that was done in 2023.
So my understanding is once that's ended,
the landowner no longer has a duty to provide allotments.
It's just private land there.
So from our perspective, that ceased.
It's not like the applicant is doing anything unusual.
The site is allocated for housing.
So they're not just trying something speculatively.
It's a matter of course, if you want the site
to be developed for housing,
you will ultimately have to serve notice on the people who have an interest in
the site for allotments. So on that basis, yeah, we can't insist on replacement
allotments. There's nothing in policy to do that. The MPPF and policy talks about
open space provision which we think has been done in this instance. It doesn't
specifically state you have to provide allotments. So in this instance we think
what's been provided in terms of open space is acceptable and meets the
requirements both the local plan and the MPPF in these respects.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:00:53
Different point again in the late letter from Gloucester Highways today. Am I right in saying
that when they refer to the stop located, bus stops, this is bus stop located in Conning
Lane does not benefit from any service provision. In other words, it seems to be that a bus
bus shelters being requested by the parish council, I think, a bus shelter is being requested
a bus stop that doesn't have any busses. Is that what that means?
Officer - 1:01:26
I will be able to bring the screen up. It is a peculiar one because it has a bus stop
sign but it doesn't appear on an up if I go through this yeah that's the one next
to the recreation ground there's a bus stop sign but highway saying is it it
doesn't provide a service that they recognise the ones that they do
recognise are shown in yellow there to the south of mini roundabout but they
don't have signs as far as I can see. It's a bit of a... So I think what highways are
saying is the one that the parish council, I believe this is the one the parish council
are referring to, there's a sign there with the bus stop on Collingwood Lane. That highway
saying that wouldn't be justified to have a bus shelter because it's not a recognised
bus stop, even though it has a sign. And the ones that don't have signs are recognised
bus stops. So you could upgrade those.
The difficulty is you could potentially look at adding a condition that say upgrades to
those two but I don't really know where they were. There is also other bus stops about
100 yards south of that next to the pond and the garage. Bus stops there anyway. So is
it reasonable to put a bus shelter in that kind of location and support signs given that
there is facilities asked where I don't think we'd refuse the application if
that didn't then that would be my argument there yeah I think it's more
a case if highways were insistent on it then they could make a case through this
highway improvement works and things like that but I think I'd be struggling
to justify it in this instance but I'll leave that for you say chair parish
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:03:17
councillors do have the power to put bus stops up. Thank You councillor
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:03:22
Breslington. Thank you chair. A lot has been said about the sewage situation the
capacity to cope people need reassurance on that you've mentioned I'm looking at
the comments by 7 Trent were absolutely incredible we're not yet able to
with any certainty what may need to be done or when it necessarily works to be
completely done. I mean, talk about vague. You suggested a gramping condition similar
to the one at Folly View. Can you reassure everybody that that gramping
Officer - 1:03:59
condition will prevent further deterioration in the situation? Thank you.
Yeah, the condition that was used at Folly View and is repeated here was based on an
appeal decision from another site in Witchhaven, about 20 miles away, a year or
So go, well, the inspector recommended a similar approach.
It says rather than prior to occupation,
it says prior to commencement,
upgrades should be sorted out and agreed,
but they'd be put in prior to occupation essentially
or in accordance with the timeframe.
So it's slightly more advanced than it would normally be
that we get from Thames Water
or previously for Southern Trent.
So we are bringing it forward
in terms of getting the upgrade process
at a more advanced stage earlier on,
But it would ensure that prior to occupation any upgrades were undertaken
And therefore any outflow from the development shouldn't impact any more than
What we currently have I know we can't rectify an existing situation. We can just seek to make sure it doesn't get any worse
Just to reiterate we've had the appeal decision that came out on Monday
I believe at Morton in Marsh after the public inquiry the public inquiry spent quite a lot of time talking about
about failed drainage and Thames Water's responsibilities and whose responsibility was to ensure that
failed drainage was dealt with and we didn't get pollution into watercourses. The Inspector
has reiterated the advice you've got here today, which is it's primarily the responsibility
of the water company to deal with that under their legislation and the EEA also deal with
it as well. So from our point of view, it's not the duty of us to replicate other controls
and other legislative regimes, we are satisfied that the conditions in place will mitigate
any potential impacts arising from foul drainage outflow.
Subject to those conditions and I think in light of the appeal on Monday as well, that's
just reiterated that position that ultimately 7 -Trent are the statutory, they have a statutory
duty to connect to their system, that's their responsibility and that's their role.
If they don't do that, then there are other organisations and bodies that will pursue that.
So that's all I can say on that really.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:06:11
Thank you. The second question is the ERS officer in relation to noise said,
concerns remain that the existing described area of open storage will allow committed activity likely to cause significant noise disturbance to proposed residential properties.
and he mentions about condition about external storage area, come back included?
Not on the auto sleepers, that's a separate planning permission and we couldn't put a
condition on that planning permission through this permission if it were.
The area however, the plans for the auto sleepers development refer to that as an outdoor storage
for carcasses of vehicles and material storage.
So it does specify what those uses will be if they move into other areas and start doing
processing on that land then clearly there was a potential breach. There's
also noise limit condition on the whole site anyway and which after six to six
o 'clock goes up to 35 decibels which is like nighttime activity. So from what
we've got and information before us and what that particular activity is we're
satisfied that it shouldn't cause any noise issues for future residents. In
In response to what the parish councillor was saying earlier on as well, the noise impact
assessment hasn't required acoustic fencing.
It's just said the noise limits will be achieved without it, but you could reduce it further
if you did put it in.
But in this instance, we don't think there's a need for that fencing because the noise
thresholds aren't going to be broken without it anyway.
I've got something to say about highways, but it's more of a comment, so I'll come back
to that in the comments.
Thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:07:50
Councillor Nikki Ind - 1:07:58
Councillor in and thank you chair just a couple and we talked about the s -106
contribution and it does look vastly different and thank you for your
explanation assuming that the residents of this development use the open space
and the playground that is there who is going to be responsible for that open
space is it going to be the parish council or are we going to have another
management committee and potentially issues with developers not handing
things over in time for the residents to start to manage it's a real problem in
I'm sure not just my part of the district but you know this whole
management committee situation so if we're going to assume and not give the
s -106 money to the village for their recreation ground or you know ask for
money I'd like to really understand how that's going to work and who's going to
be responsible and then just on highways can we insist on more safety if the
highways department are telling us they're satisfied I don't know how far
we can you know could we suddenly say well we'd like to put speed bumps in or
We'd like to sort of understand that as well.
Officer - 1:09:12
Thank you.
Yeah, if the parish council aren't prepared
to take on the open space,
then it will have to go to a private management company,
which will be set up by the developer.
And then residents who move in would be aware of that
when they move in and they would pay an annual fee
for the upkeep of that.
There isn't another mechanism by which we can do it
if the parish council isn't taking on the open space.
It's just a situation where we are at the moment.
Clearly, I mean, future residents, it's a service provider.
They will be able to take action
if that service isn't provided up to a certain standard.
But as it is, unless the local authority
is willing to take on these sites,
then we have to hand it,
it has to be taken on by a private management company.
I'm afraid.
In terms of speed humps,
that would be a matter of County Council highways
because it works on the highway.
so we can't insist on works to the highway because it's not under our
control it would be a matter for the highway authority.
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:10:20
Thank you chair. On your very last photo, very small point Martin, on your very last
photograph there's a rather nice hedge approaching the site from the east
which you said was going to shield the view of the development from the road.
Is that hedge protected in any way? Can we condition it that that hedge is protected?
Officer - 1:10:48
A section hedge row immediately to the south, that's largely overgrown,
shrubbery kind of stuff, is going to be removed.
But the majority of that hedge row that was on that photograph I showed
is to the east of the application site and not in the application site.
So it would be normal.
If it's an important hedgerow, it's protected.
If it's got a certain number of species and age
or whatever, then it is protected anyway
under the hedgerow regulations,
but it's not within the application site
and there's no proposals here to be removed,
but equally a landowner.
I'm sobbing over that.
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:11:31
Okay, so my next one is that in the local plan,
This site is for recommendations 49.
Am I right in saying this, that it was at 49 dwellings?
In the Sheila, it was 57 dwellings,
and the application is for 60.
How can you justify that massive jump?
Because presumably all three are carefully considered.
Well, the allocation was done in 2018,
Officer - 1:11:58
so we had a different land supply requirements, far less
than what we have now. So a future development of the site was based on capacity would have
been based on what our real housing needs were at that particular time going forward,
which was far less. The 57 is 2021, again, taking into account the housing needs at that
particular time, but increased it to 57. And it's now 60, which is not massively more than
I can't really stretch that to be more.
But now we have a far more significant housing land supply issue we need to address.
And also the emphasis in the MPPF is making efficient use of land.
So if we are going to release land, we should really be making as much use of it as possible
to reduce the pressure elsewhere.
So I think in this instance, 60 seems a perfectly reasonable amount for the site and the village.
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:12:54
My last question is just to help me with my ignorance.
This situation with the 7th Trent obligation to connect the houses to the water supply,
that planning or lease building consent is not reliant upon that.
So the houses can be built but not occupied until the 7th Trent permission comes through
Is that correct?
Officer - 1:13:24
Yeah, part of commencement
There'll be
We'll sort out when the upgrades are going to happen a time frame for the upgrades and then it would normally be that there shouldn't be
Occupation until those upgrades are done
And then that would that would be how that works. So yes
There wouldn't be anything to stop the African building out the houses
But like you said it wouldn't get the occupation until all the upgrades are put in place, but that's a fairly standard practise
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:13:50
My last question have you ever known a development to be built out subject to a
condition like that that doesn't get sold and inhabited?
Officer - 1:13:59
Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:14:09
Councillor Caul. Thank you and this is just for clarity question the the
grandpa conditions on 7 Trent those are the strictest conditions that can be
applied to a developer and they're not harsh enough for them to be able to appeal against
them?
Officer - 1:14:27
No, I mean they're based on an appeal inspectors decision. So they shouldn't be, it's very
difficult I think then to argue against them if a previous planning inspector elsewhere
has kind of indicated that approach is acceptable, especially one that's 20 miles up the road
from here.
Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:14:43
And the last question was, just regarding the footpath, because when we went to the
site visit, we went through the field to the east of the development site. Does the footpath
go through the field or will you have to go onto the road to then access the footpath
that we went onto the church, which would obviously be a much quicker direct route for
anyone wanting to go to the school there and the church and get into the village.
Officer - 1:15:15
Like I said, the entrance to that right away is about 10, 50 metres to the east, southeast of the
vehicular entrance. So you just cross the road and then you walk across the grass field. It's a grass
field, there's no formal path. It'd be nice in the summer, it's not so great in the winter, but it
will give you, but it is an ideal route if you wanted to walk to the primary school and avoids
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:15:38
Councillor Paul Evans - 1:15:42
all the roads. Anyone onto the roads after then. Councillor Evans. Thank you.
Back to the footpath and access. Similarly to
Councillor In's comment, I would be concerned about the footpath being
that access alongside that incredibly busy road unless it is wide enough for
both realistically children on cycles and pedestrians walking. I don't suppose there's
any way that we can mandate or put a condition on that there's a certain width to it or is
that a matter for highways? I think I know the answer.
Officer - 1:16:18
Yeah, I won't surprise you then. I will say the detail of highway plans are provided,
upgrade plans have been provided by the applicant in the Transport Statement. They've all been
assessed by the Highway Officer is satisfied with them. They're going to 1 .8 metres and
2 metres which is the standard width which would allow people to pass. At the moment
I think they're just over a metre, they're quite narrow, so you'll get the extra width.
So it would be fine for pushchairs and prams and whatever.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:16:51
Anyone else? I've got a couple of questions. I'm sorry you can't answer the question.
I have a couple of questions. On page 67, there was something that says the new pedestrian
cycle entrance would connect into the un -implemented employment site entrance. Does that mean people
would be coming out on bikes where HGVs were coming in? I didn't quite, it sounded a bit
Officer - 1:17:23
dodgy to me. The approved auto sleepers entrance forms
part of a one way system. I think they are going out that way. They wouldn't be coming
in that way. They are going out that way I think. It would be like an industrial estate
entrance. The HGVs are probably going to be fairly limited because it's not that type
of business. But yeah, the pavement would be ‑‑ if the auto sleepers entrance goes
ahead then it would be pavement side to side and the pavement from this site
would go into a pavement then you tack a pavement across the entrance and then
you connect into the the improved pavement so that's deemed to be
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:18:00
acceptable. The other thing is around the the land that she's been set
aside for the the play area so and the fact that the village the
The parish council would prefer to have that as allotments.
So, I mean, Councillor Inge refers to the fact that
sometimes land is transferred into the management
of the parish council, rather than a management committee.
You alluded to that as well.
So, on page 116 of the main pages, it says,
The parish council said if the site is not fully prepared and available on a long -term
lease we would request ownership of the land so that they could use it as allotment. Could
you just explain what would happen to that? First of all, are they obliged, the developers,
to provide a play area? Or are they just obliged to provide some sort of open space?
Officer - 1:19:10
For developments of this size, we'd normally require a play area of some form, an open
space to be provided within development for the recreational purposes of the people who
are moving in. So they don't have to... It's just good to have it on site rather than having
to walk across the village or whatever. But there is no requirement in the policy to provide
allotments. If they were proposed, that would be great. We couldn't insist on them. Maybe
that's something in the new local plan that we could say above a certain size development
should provide allotments but that isn't policy at the moment it's just to make
it's just one of the things that would be taken into account in terms of open
space provision as part of a development but it is a mix of things like you know
trim trail or crust area dog walking area but play area they're all part and
parcel of that mix but in this instance we think what's been proposed the area
of open space crust area plus the play children play area provides a variety of
recreational space for a range of different age groups and people and would be fairly
self -sufficient for the development. But we couldn't insist on that land being provided.
If the applicant wanted to provide it, that would be fine. But I don't think we can insist
on it in this instance.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:20:25
That could be something that potentially after the Planning Commission was granted could
Officer - 1:20:33
be negotiated with the...
To be clear the diocese who own the land around here have already offered to the
parish council that they're willing to meet with them and discuss things like
this about allotments and the land they own so that again I it's something that
the applicant and the parish council you know can engage and there may be other
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:20:54
alternatives that locations where allotments could be provided. But they
are obliged to put in a certain amount of player equipment.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:21:02
Did you have another question? Sorry, I can't see any provision in report
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:21:10
Officer - 1:21:16
about solar panels. Has that been discussed? It has been mentioned but not on any of the
plans. The applicant, this permission wouldn't include solar panels on the development or
dwellings but equally the permitted development rights for solar panels would be intact. Future
residents wanted to put them on, they could. But in terms of energy efficiency and renewable
energy, the applicant is providing quite a number of other measures. It's not so, which
we believe are fairly positive without the need to provide the solar panels in this instance.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:21:52
Thank you very much. If there's no further questions, we'll move on to comments and open
I'm going to pick up the debate. Councillor Judd.
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:22:00
I drove through Willysee not that long ago. I was on a happy mission to go to Stratford on Aben for the theatre.
And what struck me was just over the border, literally, I mean I'm not quite sure, perhaps one of the wall counsellors can help me out,
but you're talking just a couple of miles,
you go into the next local authority area,
and there is the most enormous amount
of building work going on there.
And I'm just thinking those little,
those roads on either side of this development
are pretty tiny, really.
But it's not just this development
that should be taken into consideration
when talking about highways.
It is the cumulative impact of what is happening in that area. I suggest, I am very uncomfortable
that I haven't had confirmation that a highways officer has actually visited the site or the
area. My suggestion is that we request that and that the highways officer comes to Council
for I'm afraid to say a re -meet of this so we defer this application pending a
more thorough highways investigation.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:23:25
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:23:31
Councillor Breslington. Thank you that's exactly what I was going to suggest. I
think we should consider deferring the application and invite the highways
officer from a county council to come because this is a very serious issue. All members
who went onto the site panel, I'm the one who's expressed their concerns about it, and
we need to be satisfied so I think it would be best to defer it. And in the meantime,
if possible, I would suggest we have a site inspection panel for those members who didn't
go in the first place to have a look at it. I think it's that important.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:24:13
Councillor Colle.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:24:23
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:24:24
Master, I appreciate that you consider this is comments rather than debate. It did sound to me like we had a proposer and a seconder there. So have we got a motion to defer that we can debate?
Okay, we'll take that. Do you want to...
I propose that we defer the application with a request that highways actually
humanly visit the site and we get knowledge of that and that the next time
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:24:50
that this application is heard in this chamber that that highways officer is
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:24:55
here to answer our questions directly. Councillor Bressington your seconder.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:25:03
members well within your right to reach your own view and further application
obviously just to pre -warn non -determination appeared as obviously a
potential risk of that route we have an extension of time until the end of this
week beyond that we don't and the applicant obviously retains the right to
potentially appeal non -determination just something to bear in mind when
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:25:23
you're voting and deciding on that and but yeah otherwise obviously before we
go to the vote I'll let everyone to speak who wants to speak Councillor Caul. I was
Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:25:31
I was mopped to second it but yeah I totally agree I think the site visit
really to make it quite quite clear and it made me uncomfortable to vote to
approve the application currently without that added should we say added
security from knowing that a officer has actually attended a highways officer
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:25:53
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:25:57
hasn't attended in person. Councillor Coleman. Yes thank you very much chair and in
response to the query raised by our chief officer I would comment that in
this case it's probably is relevant two points one is that this is the Diocese
of Gloucester's land one of the reasons it hasn't come forward sooner is that
they're not in any rush as a rule and I really can't imagine any circumstances
in which the Diocese of Gloucester would object to another month's wait, but if they ever did,
I might see the Bishop about it, seeing as our church wardens can get uppity.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:26:28
Thank you for that intervention. Councillor Coleman. Councillor End.
Councillor Nikki Ind - 1:26:32
Thank you, Chair. Just on this whole point of highways, I don't know if we can ask for the
highways officer from Gloucestershire, given exactly what Councillor Judas just said about
just over the border to discuss with their counterparts in the next local authority to
understand the impact. Because my concern is you're going to get to a border and they're
not going to consider however many hundreds, thousands of houses are being built the other
side. So I think that's going to be really important in this as well because it sort
of sits on a border.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:27:06
Just to say within your report pack we did consult the neighbouring authority and they
raised no objection so within the summary of consortees it does the last
two are which haven councils which have raised no objection to the proposal
having been consulted and provide their comments directly to us.
Councillor Paul Evans - 1:27:24
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:27:26
Councillor Judge. I just wanted to add that I completely understand Harrison
throwing up the concern about period of non -determination however I think the
applicant should be reassured by the fact that in principle that the parish
Council have said in principle that they do not object to this. The perfect planning applications
are done with the support of the parish council, with the support of the planning committee
and with the support of the planning officers. Any applicant who is going to take us on a
situation like that. They don't, they, why would you? I think we all want the right decision
for the right reasons and we can all work collaboratively towards a good. So I appreciate
Harrison's concern. In this instance, I feel that we have weight on our side.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:28:22
Just to clarify, I'm not trying to discourage you from going down the route. It's more just
obviously when you vote, it's important to have awareness of, you know, the pros and
benefits, you know, pros and cons of everything you're doing. So it's more just for awareness.
I'm not trying to discourage you, it's completely your fault.
Councillor Evans.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:28:39
At the moment we have a current proposal to defer the application because we want to have
further information from Gloucestershire County Council highways and we would
like to have an officer attend a further meeting of this planning committee so
that we can ask questions of them. Is that what you're saying, Councillor Judd?
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:29:04
Yes, and from what I understand you can't force them to, but I think a polite invitation
and if they were made aware of our genuine concerns of this committee and everybody else
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:29:15
who's spoken up here, because every single person here has mentioned it.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:29:18
Are you happy with that, Councillor Bresson? My suggestion is about having an additional
sites inspection visit for those who didn't attend in the first place, whether you think
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:29:26
that's suitable or not? We'll have to take a separate vote on that. So shall we
vote on the motion to defer to start with? Have we got enough reasons for deferral?
Yes, fine. If we're going on to another SIB I'll just have a look what the constitution says.
Okay, so we'll vote to defer this application pending a further report
from highways. Hopefully we'd be able to get that back at the next meeting. Would
Do you have thoughts?
Yeah.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:30:10
The application is deferred with 10 members,
all members agreeing to defer the application
awaiting a highways report.
Harrison, will you advise us about
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:30:23
second site inspection briefing. The reservation is the site inspection briefing does need
to be justified with the planning protocol. My laptop won't load at the minute. But my
only concern is we've already undertaken a site inspection briefing. Members have already
reported back to the committee. Unless we can identify something new or something that
wasn't already covered with another original site inspection briefing, my only concern
is I don't know if we can justify it based on the constitutional requirements. If members
want to put something forward that's fine but I am a bit concerned that that
might be difficult to do as half the committee have attended and have then
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:30:57
reported back to other members at the beginning of the meeting. It would be
possible of course for you to travel over to Willowsie and have a look at the
site yourself. Yeah so we won't be voting on a site inspection briefing. Okay so
that application is deferred pending further information from highways.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:31:16
Right. Back to the agenda. Do those members of the public who attended for this application,
Do you want to leave now or are you going to stay for the rest of the meeting?
Thank you very much.
.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:33:04
Thank you very much.
We move on to agenda item nine,
which is a further application to the change of use
of agricultural land to allow for the siting of caravans
in association with Fairford Royal International Air Tattoo
for up to 28 days annually at Cutlass Fields
and Hawcot Hill, Fairford, Gloucestershire.
The case officer is Jordan Hawes.
The ward members are Councillors Mancilla and Wilkinson,
and the recommendation is to permit.
So can I ask Jordan to give us an update, please?
Officer - 1:33:42
Thank you.
Thank you, chef.
I have no updates.
Officer - 1:33:50
Sorry.
Very abrupt, yeah.
So the application is for a change
of use of agricultural land to allow for the siting of caravans
in association with the Fairford Royal International Air Tattoo for up to 28 days annually.
So it comprises two sites.
One is a volunteer camping site and the other is a contractor's campsite.
It's located just south east of Fairford.
You have the Cotswold Waterpark SSSI to the north and then the RAF base to the south.
They are both accessed off of Hawcott Road, which there is no cursor up there, is there?
Just one straight through the middle.
So, both have existing accesses off the main road and they're quite wide and sufficient
to allow parking and vehicles to access.
I suppose just in clarity, the site to the south west, or the west, would be the contractor's
site at Cutlass Field and then the one to the east is the volunteer campsite which is
Hawcot Hill. And then this is the outline of them within the fields. So each of these
fields will have other sort of tents and other sort of temporary structures but all of those
are covered under permitted development rights. So the only thing in this case is the caravans
been considered which are outside of the permitted element rights.
There wasn't really much to show so I think they did some site photos.
This is the access to Hawkhart Hill which is the volunteer site and then this is
Cutlass Field which is the contractor's campsite. So yeah they're quite sort of
existing accesses.
That was it.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:36:16
Thank you very much.
We have one public speaker, Emma Wellman, who is the applicant.
Thank you very much.
You have three minutes as before.
We will let you know when you have come to the end of your time.
Thank you very much.
Applicant/Agent - 1:36:35
At the outset, I should stress that there have been no objections to this application
from any members of the public, nor from any statutory consultees, and your officers are
recommending that you approve it. The only reason proposals have been brought to the
Committee for determination is because the combined area of the two application sites
is larger than one hectare. As most of you will be aware, the Royal International Air
tattoo is one of the largest military air shows in the world.
It has taken place annually at the RAF Fairford since 1985 and
makes a significant contribution to the local economy.
The event is organised by the Royal Air Force Charitable Trust
Enterprises.
All proceeds from REACT go to our RAF CT Charitable Trust
that provides STEM education for children from primary
to university level and invites around 10 ,000 schoolchildren to attend the event as part
of the Friday Futures programme. REACT also provides invaluable opportunities for UK PLC
to host international delegations and provide defence industry engagement through allied
events hosted by the RAF Chief of the Air staff and the organisers ourselves, RAF CTE.
On the run -up to each year's show, the small in -house team at RAF CTE are joined by an
army of volunteers and contractors that are fundamental to the delivery of REACT.
We host approximately 1 ,400 volunteers, comprising a diverse mix of people ranging from those
with a passion for aviation to serving military personnel, including RAF air cadets, former
military and others filling specialist aviation and medical roles.
Overnight accommodation for our event workers is provided in a variety of ways, but the
majority is on a festival temporary campsite using land that we rent from the farmer for
a short period every year.
Whilst the vast majority of our campsite falls within permitted development rights, through
discussions with officers last year, it was confirmed that planning permission is required
for the temporary caravan pitches. Accordingly, this application seeks permission for up to
150 temporary caravan pitches over the two parcels of land to the east of the base. These
form part of our wider festival campsites for volunteers, one housing volunteers and
contractors. All ancillary supporting facilities needed to operate the
festival are brought onto site and then removed and handed back when the land
reverts back to agricultural use. Given the scale and nature of the proposals
including the short duration and the fact that the officers have confirmed
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:39:42
they are policy compliant we ask you to approve the scheme. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Very good timing. I don't think we have our ward members here.
Have they provided any further update? In that case we'll move straight on to questions.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:40:00
Councillor Brastenden. No, it says in the report no comments received at the time of writing by the
Any other questions? Councillor Bridges.
Councillor Nick Bridges - 1:40:19
As I haven't spoken today, I've actually done this, I've achieved a trader at the RA thing.
It's really good, very well organised, I can't imagine there being any problems.
But my token question will be, does this have any effect on local B &Bs, will they lose any business?
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:40:46
I think the assessment they've undertaken is effectively that given the
quantity of people they need on site there isn't sufficient available space
in the area. These are obviously contractors and workers not visitors and
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:41:01
attendees who would potentially still be able to use them. I'm sure the BNB's
flourish for RE -ATs actually but I'm sure they're all booked out.
Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:41:11
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:41:14
yeah and councillor cool is it too early to recommend we accept the officers to
I'm proposing that we support the officers recommendation does anyone else
have a question or a comment before we go to the vote no questions no comments
well done everybody yeah I would cancel judge if you've got a comment my comment
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:41:36
is to support Councillor...
Um, um...
What's your name?
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:41:41
Darryl Core's proposal to recommend the officers' vote.
Okay, so we have a proposal to accept the officer's recommendation
to allow this application to go ahead
and seconded... proposed by Councillor Core,
seconded by Councillor Judd.
So we'll go to the vote.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:42:43
We have a couple more items. I have a request for a comfort break. If everyone is happy,
we will take a maximum of 10 minutes comfort break. We will be starting again at 5 to 4
on the nail. Thank you, Judas.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:43:28
We are going to start again.
Thank you. We are now moving on to agenda item 10, which is footpath diversion order
for Techbury Upton, footpath NTU46. Public path diversion order 2026. The officer is
Andrew Moody, the Council, all Councillors are Councillor
Ind and Councillor Hall -Wilson.
The recommendation is that the Planning and Licencing
Committee resolve to make a public pass a diversion order
in respect of Tepry Upton footpath number NTU46 part
under section 275 Town and Country Planning Act 1990
and carry out the statutory consultation subject to response
and any final minor amendment required
by the County Council Public Rights of Way officers
and B to confirm the public path diversion order
if unopposed.
Sorry, Chair, if I may, I've just noticed a typo
in the report.
It should be section 257.
Oh, 257, okay.
Thank you.
Just to correct the recommendation.
Yes, yes, yes, thank you very much.
So that's under section 257 of the Town and Country
planning out under paragraph A. Well spotted. So can I ask Mr. Moody to
Officer - 1:45:05
present an update for us? Thank you chair. First update is on page 8. It just
summarises some representations that the local planning authority has received
during the application, none of which are objecting to the proposal. And also then
pages 13 to 21 of the photographs at Annex C, but they're all in the
presentation I'm about to show you now. So I won't delay matters with regards to that.
So the application site is on the area to the north. On the screen at the moment the
green line is the existing public right of way. The red line is the proposed diversion.
The plan permission was granted in December 2024 for 27 dwellings and a healthcare facility
on that land to the north, which you can see is shaded brown.
As you'll see from the photographs, works have progressed significantly since this photograph
was taken.
As you'll see from this diagram, the public right -of -way route went across the gardens
of the five dwellings at the southernmost end of the site, so therefore it needs to
be formally diverted to the route shown in red from the previous aerial photograph, which
is the dotted line on the bottom of the screen.
This photograph is taken from the Silenchester Road, looking towards the east.
The route of the existing public right -of -way is on the tarmac, it's on the left that diverts
through the trees. The tarmac route in front of you is the route leading to
Warhol Farmhouse itself and the proposed diverted route has already been
constructed which you'll see in the forthcoming photographs and that's the
light coloured hogging path to the right of the route to Warhol Farmhouse. So this
is the existing route through the trees currently fenced off and shall not pass
because there was a digger in the way when I did the photographs last week.
This is the route from the other end showing that the existing route of the public right
of way is now completely unusable because you've got a retaining wall that's around
in old money eight feet high at least.
This is the route that is now proposed to be diverted to which has already been constructed.
I understand this has been agreed with the county council.
So further on down, a couple more photographs, and that's where it links in with the existing
public right -of -way.
Reference is also made to the Warwell, which is there.
That is the source of the Tepry Avon.
As you'll see from your report, a permissive route from the public right -of -way to that
Warwell is going to be provided within the diversion.
It is only a short distance across the access road to Warble Farmhouse.
So therefore the recommendation as per the agenda is that make the public diversion public
path diversion order in the courts of section 257 in Town and Country Planning Act.
That will be a formal consultation.
If there are no objections received, then the council would then be able to confirm
the public path diversion order.
As you will note from the agenda, there were a couple of comments made which are considered
to have been addressed, i .e. the width of the path and also the access to Warwell through
the consideration of the application to date.
However, that has been a formal consultation, so it is the formal consultation if you are
minded to progress towards making the diversion order today that will then elicit if there
are any formal objections.
If there are formal objections, then the matter has to be referred to the Secretary of State
for a final decision.
If there are not, then the Council can then confirm the order.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:49:11
Thank you very much.
Officer - 1:49:24
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:49:29
So there are no public speakers, but we have both ward members present, Councillor Nicky
Yes, fantastic. Good to see Team Tepry out in force. I don't know which of you is going
to go first, but you have up to five minutes each.
Five minutes, if I may keep.
Applicant/Agent - 1:49:49
Applicant/Agent - 1:49:50
Thank you chair. A very brief statement from me. As a daily user of this path and since
the development has started the temporary path I fully support the footpath diversion
order for the Tepry Upton footpath NTU 46 at Woolworth Farm. I'm pleased to see that
Ward Member - 1:50:13
all four of the responses that we'd received to the consultation have now been addressed
and resolved and that's all for me really except so it was much drier this
morning than the pictures Andrew showed us thank you my name is Councillor Laura
Hall Wilson and I represent Tepary with Upton that's the other Ward covering
the application I'd like to speak in support of carrying out the consultation
force the stopping up and diversion of the footpath on land west of werewell
farmhouse in Tepary with Upton and the neighbouring Tepary Eastern rural and
What's now largely been completed is much better than what was there before.
I walked it this morning.
I've reassured myself that it is in fact a better route than was there before.
I understand that concerns were received about continuing access to the Whirwell, the start
of the River Haven, and I note from the report that permissive access has now been granted
by the landowner.
I can see that this morning that it will still be very easy to access that, and I understand
and there was some concerns about the width of the path,
which also having walked it this morning,
I see have been alleviated.
So what's being asked is in line
with the original planning commission,
although it's a separate legislative procedure
for the doctor surgery in the houses,
which is such an important infrastructure project
for the town of Tepary.
So I want to reiterate my support for granting approval
to continue with the consultation.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:51:36
Thank you very much.
I think Councillor Inge you are planning to leave now, aren't you?
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:51:54
Okay, do we have any questions?
Councillor Evans?
Thank you, thank you, Chair.
Thank you, thank you, Chair.
Councillor Paul Evans - 1:52:02
On the response to point two, in an access to the Woolwell,
I note that the agent has confirmed that there will be a gate from the footpath.
On what basis is that permission to access the wall well granted?
Is it in perpetuity? Could it be withdrawn at any time? Do we know?
Officer - 1:52:25
My understanding is what they are going to give is a permissive route, so it's not going to be formally part of the diversion.
I will have to look to our legal representatives if she has any careers or both.
They can withdraw permissive rights, I am not sure.
Legal Services - 1:52:40
Thank you, Andrew.
It is just a permissive landowner's right as far as we understand.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:52:50
Councillor Judd.
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:52:54
Will it be dog proof?
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:52:57
Officer - 1:52:58
I'm not totally sure of the answer to that. It is separated, as you have seen from the
photographs. If I just, if you can just slide us back up on the screen please. One query
raised by one of the public, those writing in, was whether it was going to be immediately
adjacent. It would be some way away, a bit of a gap from the path. But I mean the access
road there is only provides access to Warwah Farmhouse ie one property it's
not like it's that gains access into any of the residential development to the
north when the metal fencing is gone down it's presumably it's going to be
fairly open but obviously if you're a attentive dog owner you probably want
them on the lead because you've got the Synester Road at the end and it might
not be safe otherwise to do so I speak in there as a dog owner. I know you're
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:53:50
gonna say no but I mean it would be really nice if we can condition it that
it was dog -proof but I mean could we politely request that they do some
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:54:04
mitigation to make it a little bit safer for our lovely furry friends.
Might be worth highlighting the existing access is a single road which serves as
both the driveway and the public right -of -way so this will segregate it
so to some extent will be by its very nature improve the safety of it.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:54:21
Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:54:25
Any further questions? Councillor Caul. Thank you just one more questions
regarding the concerns about the width of the footpath. My limited
experience spending time with Colossal City County Council's Public Right Away
Office is that new footpaths have to be a certain width is that right and is that
Officer - 1:54:42
going to be applied to the situation? Yeah if you look at point six four the
report response to point three the applicants proposing a minimum two metre
width and the County Council won't raise any objection.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:54:57
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:55:00
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:55:02
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:55:04
Thank you, Chair. On page 151 is a large -scale map which I suspect suffered from the same
problem as earlier pages in the agenda and no longer includes as far as I can tell any
part of this application. So is that the case, page one? It's before 153 and after 149. So
I'm interpolating this number 51151. It's no use to us, is it?
No, so I think there was a problem with the printing. So yes, the published online and
say the copy I have, which you are welcome to look at, is a proper plan, yes. Unfortunately
there was a problem with the printing on your packs. Although Julia may be looking through
something at the minute and be able to help.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:55:51
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:55:56
Councillor Judd. I'm just a bit confused why this didn't come through before I
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:56:04
mean it's it's basically if we didn't approve it you're talking about an
enforcement of something that's already been built and everybody approves of but
it would have been better to put the cart before the horse as always with
planning. I just wondered if there's a reason why it's coming so late.
Officer - 1:56:20
Diversions tend to be done after the development has been permitted. Clearly they've
commenced works here but as far as I'm aware the temporary route has been
agreed with the County Council so there's not necessarily a need to pursue
that matter. And in terms of the amenity of the new right -of -way, that's
considered to be acceptable. But also it's a matter that we have done in
formal consultation with various groups, Ramblers' Association and the like. This has
been a question of getting to the stage whereby we think all parties are happy
before we go to formal consultation. I mean the indication is, I've got a couple
of other of these applications on at the moment, and you tell applicants it can
take anything up to a year to resolve. You have to be in the position that we are content,
that the County Council are happy as well as the consultees now. Those two organisations
who raise concerns haven't formally in writing removed their concerns. It is just a verbal
at the moment. That is the reason why we are asking your permission now to move forward
to the formal consultation stage and then we will see if those objections are maintained,
As I said previously, the matter goes to the Secretary of State and they will end up in
a public inquiry before any diversion order is agreed.
So obviously we hope they do not do so and at the end of the consultation period it can
be formally diverted.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:57:53
Any further questions?
Can I ask a question on the actual procedure?
We are voting on the recommendation to make a public path diversion order etc.
And to carry out the statutory consultation.
Is the district council's responsibility to carry out the statutory consultation?
Yes.
You are being asked to confirm A and B but we can't do B until the end of A. We are asking
you to do both now rather than have to bring it back again for you at the end of the consultation.
That's what I was really wanting to know.
So you are being asked to confirm A and B,
but at the moment we can only do A,
the consultations will be done,
and then we'll review the situation
in the consultation period.
If there were no, if it's unopposed,
it doesn't need to come back here.
No, that's correct.
If it's unopposed, we can then just confirm
the diversion order.
Okay.
Do you all understand that?
Yeah, sorry, but just to elaborate,
if there is opposition, it will still come back to you,
will have to pass the matter over to the Secretary of State and the Inspector will be appointed
to listen to the arguments against it and for it and then make the final judgement.
Thank you very much. Are there any further comments? In that case, we are voting on the
recommendations set before us. Shall I read them out again? I will. Make a public pass
diversion order in respect of Tepry, Upson, Footpath No NTU 46 part under Section 257
of the Town and Country Planning Act 1919 to carry out the statutory consultation
subject to response and any final minor amendment required by the County
Council PROW officers and then if unopposed we're allowing that public
path diversion order to be confirmed. If it is opposed it has to go to
Secretary of State. So we are voting on those recommendations.
Sorry, Councillor, could I have someone to propose the recommendation first and second?
Yes, sorry. Proposed by Councillor Judge, seconded by
Councillor Evans. Thank you. Sorry.
Councillor Inne is withdrawn due to her declaration of interest.
So we should be nine votes.
It is yours, the vote not recorded.
I don't have that nice green thing.
Okay. Well...
I don't know.
Have we got names?
We've got the names.
All right.
So, Councillor Judge, you think that's the vote that's not been recorded?
Are you in favour of the recommendation?
Yes.
Excellent.
In that case, it is unanimously passed.
That was complicated.
Moving on, now our head of planning, Harrison, is going to update us on the enforcement plan.
You have all received detailed information under agenda item 11.
Could you give us any verbal updates that you have?
Yes.
Fair enough.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:01:48
There you go.
It's close enough.
So what we've got in front of you today is going to be taken as read.
There's not a PowerPoint presentation, but just to give a bit of background.
So paragraph six of the MPPF sets out LPA should consider publishing a local enforcement
plan. It's not a statutory requirement, it's an encouraged to do so.
Council and the Treasury Council published a plan in 2018 but it hasn't been reviewed
and updated since then. So effectively what is in front of you is a reviewed and updated
version of that in the local enforcement plan. The local enforcement plan looks to set out
effectively how local planning authorities will investigate alleged breaches of development
and request development and how they will consider taking action. It's similar to your
local plan but obviously much more, well the scope is much more limited to just purely
enforcement matters. So the reviewed version, we haven't updated the
principles against which we undertake enforcement. We've more focused on the
procedural side of things and generally the tools and obviously it's been
changing legislation and other planning matters since it was since 2018 so it's
really just an updated version of the procedures and legislative background to
enforcement. It's presented to members hopefully to endorse the plan which
Before we go into questions and things, there are a couple of asks.
I know enforcement can be a personal thing.
You will all have both live and historic enforcement cases in your wards.
I will have to ask, because they are confidential and we have to remain in the scope of what
we are discussing, that we do avoid discussing live and historic investigations and specific
cases.
if you have any that you want to refer to or in the abstract or just as a
reference point that's obviously fine but if we could avoid getting into any
detail on specific cases that would be appreciated. It's also worth noting that
the scope of these discussions is purely the draught enforcement plan in front of
us and you'll probably already be aware but overview and scrutiny will be
reviewing a more general update on the planning enforcement service at the
council at the end of this month. Those reports are published in the next week
to which will be looking more at performance in general approach and
procedures and backgrounds and things so this is more limited in scope this
report if endorsed by members or endorsed with recommended changes will
also form part of that O &S review so it would be included as an appendix but
obviously we wanted to bring it towards the planning committee as it is a
function this committee has oversight of in order for you to review,
provide any comments, discuss and hopefully endorse at the end of that but
Hopefully the rest can be taken as read. I am happy to answer any questions.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:04:32
Councillor Conlon.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:04:37
Chair, I think it would be helpful without mentioning, and I don't have any wish to mention, any individual cases
For the officers to agree that for the first time in over two years, I think it is now,
they supply us with a summary of the number of the enforcement cases that are outstanding.
We know there are cases that arguably go back over 20 years to when one of our current members
was an officer and his name appears in some of the documents.
And I'm not mentioning that case.
I seriously would like to know how many vacancies we have had, how many vacancies we have got
now and if in the event we were able to recruit to the full complement, how many members,
full time equivalent if you like, of enforcement staff would we have?
I am exceptionally grateful I am a member of the administration because I would probably
be suffering from loss of patients otherwise and be complaining very loudly.
It really seems very upsetting that we can't get the data that we used to get
on a monthly basis and it's quite upsetting that we can't seem to make
progress in telling members what's happening with the enforcement and
telling us who our enforcement officers are because we haven't hardly got any.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:06:01
None of those matters are covered by the enforcement plan, so that's all matters that should really
be raised at the overview and scrutiny committee, which will be looking more generally. And
I can, if members want a general update, we're up to full staff now, albeit we've only just
appointed a couple, so they're still going through the onboarding process, but we do
now have, well, six posts, five and a half equivalent staff. In terms of general reporting,
it's something we're working on. Background systems need updating. We've only just recently
appointed an admin member of staff who will be able to produce those reports. It's a work
in progress. We know members want it, we want to do it too, but ultimately taking somebody
away to prepare that report on a periodic basis is resources that they are not spending
doing enforcement cases. We are trying to balance these things and we are having to
take a reasonable approach to that. But beyond that, I think none of those matters are covered
by the enforcement plan, so they are probably better directed to overview and scrutiny committee
rather than this committee which is just looking at the scope of the enforcement plan itself.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:06:57
Do you have anything pertaining to the plan?
I conduct what's known as a reverse ferret.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:07:01
Thank the officer very much and I'm very happy to propose a recommendation.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:07:06
Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:07:09
Councillor Brasington, do you have a question?
Yes, thank you, Chair.
In paragraph 4 on page 168, it says routine monitoring of all developments are not feasible,
which is obviously fair enough, but in relation to the very large applications that we get,
I'm thinking of the steadings, we have a dedicated officer looking at 106, or we used to.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:07:36
We have a Section 106 monitoring officer, yes, albeit that is, yes, that will keep track
of sort of as and when Section 106 obligations will be triggered. They don't sit in my enforcement
team, they sit within the civil infrastructure team, but yes, there is a Section 106 monitoring
officer and albeit their scope is limited they are mostly reliant on
developers informing them of when certain triggers are met and most
Section 6 is include requirements for developers to notify us on the 10th
occupation or something and so they'll monitor it from that sense that they
will also do periodic monitoring for things like the local plans when they're
doing their updated housing land delivery and reports and things that is
an annual thing it's not something we're not regularly sending people out around
the district to monitor them we don't have the resources for that if that were
a function members wanted that would be quite we'd have to look at that and it
be a much broader sort of conversation in terms of how we'd facilitate that
it's not something we've had as long as I've worked here any other questions
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:08:36
council Watson
Councillor Ian Watson - 2:08:44
The motion is adopted.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:08:47
Page 177 talks about appendix A. I apologise.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:09:04
There is an appendix that sets out all the powers available to the enforcement team.
I do apologise, I missed that offer and I sent it through.
It is more of a factual piece, it's not saying how we will approach those things,
it's purely what is available and what it means, it's more of an informative thing for members of
the public, so when we say temporary stop notice or you know listed building enforcement notice,
we can just refer them to that bit of the document and explain what that means.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:09:28
So yeah I do apologise, that was my oversight.
Will that be attached to the report for the ONS?
That's fine, great.
Councillor Judd.
Councillor Julia Judd - 2:09:37
Just on a, this is an admin thing, I just wondered if we could be sent a PDF of just
that, pages 163 to page 181. I just think it would be helpful for all of us. I know
it's only in draught form at the moment, but I mean this is quite, it's something that
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:09:57
I would like to refer to easily on my computer. Yeah, of course there should already be a
version online which would be an appendix to the report of this committee item, but
don't see why we can't share that separately as well. On the website it does separate it out but
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:10:12
don't worry we'll arrange for a copy to be shared. Okay so we have a
proposal put forward I've forgotten who it was now was it Councillor Coleman did
you you were the person who proposed that we accept the recommendation to
the Planning and Licencing Committee resolves to endorse the local
enforcement plan so that's proposed by Councillor Coleman and seconded by
by myself by Councillor Watson
great that's unanimously passed so we move very swiftly on to the appointments
I seem to be the accountable member.
You have the report in front of you.
You know that we are obliged to appoint different committees for licencing.
So one subcommittee is to look at taxi, private hire and street trading.
That is a committee that is made up of five members which are appointed according to political
proportionality.
The recommendations for those appointments are on page 189.
For the Liberal Democrat group we have Councillor Watson, Van and Brasington.
For the Conservative group we have Councillor Judd and Councillor Fowles.
Are there any queries about that?
Is everybody who finds themselves on that committee expecting to be on that committee?
That's great.
Councillor Fowles.
Councillor Fowles, yes.
I have a question.
You can speak.
Do we know what the agenda is? That will be in June and you will get the
agenda. We will discuss that in a minute when we get to that item on the agenda. This is
and have a look at this recommendation first of all yes yes great
council Bressington question on the recommendation number two yeah it's got
the licence of social committee membership comprised the chair or vice
chair we had a situation recently where the chair and vice chair weren't present
yeah but doesn't seem to be covered yes
No, I'm just saying the long -new one, we didn't have a chair or vice chair and I question
that later.
Thank you.
Yes, members, the monitoring officer is going to make a change to the constitution so that
for the subcommittee it will be chair of the committee that would normally chair
otherwise they're not present will be the vice chair and if neither are
present the members will vote chair from amongst the members are present so
that's going to be a change that is is being made thank you well that is what
happened at the most recent meeting of the licencing subcommittee licencing act 2003
if I've got it clear in my head as opposed to not the taxes one when we did the most
recent application for a music festival. So that seemed to work fairly well at the time
and I think that's a reasonable thing.
In this case, the new rota here that we have on page 191, which is for licencing 2003 Act
matters as opposed to the committee that's looking at tax and private hire and street
trading. So this is looking at other licencing matters. So the the rotor that
we have done clearly has either myself or Ian down as chairing the committee. So
whereas I don't think we had that last year it was just it was just a rotation
Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:15:11
of three different people. Yeah, Councillor Conlon. This is a question with a
From a personal point of view, I admit, does that mean, looking at page 191, with the membership
for up to five subcommittees, that I won't be on again until another four subcommittees
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:15:27
have been held, because that's probably be better for everybody if it's true?
I'm sure you're being too modest, Councillor Coleman, but it does look like that, yes.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:15:34
Thank you.
I might just add, I should have said the reason the monitoring officer needs to make a
change is that the Constitution indicates at the moment it will be from
amongst the members but you actually adopted a procedure a little while ago
which was that the chair would normally preside over the meetings otherwise the
chair or amongst the members, so we have two conflicting, so the monitoring officer is
clarifying that by making a change and that is happening now.
I have a second question. Paragraph 3 .3 on page 187, halfway down, officers will also
seek to identify a fourth member of a planning licence we keep on standby but
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:16:28
that's something new is it? Yes I think it is because I have recently had to ask
for a sub so I think I think it would be much better if we have somebody who
Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:16:39
knows that they might be called upon yeah. The sub be notified in advance as
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:16:47
much as possible so they can read the papers just in case they're needed.
Yes, I think it would be good if the sub got all the papers,
because occasionally somebody's ill on the day,
they go down with COVID or something.
And so it would be good to have somebody
that was readily briefed in advance.
Is that okay?
Can I just point out, we're going to,
when we look at recommendation two,
it's talking about the second committee,
the Licencing Committee is drawn on a rota base subject to their availability
and completion of licencing training. So at the moment as we discussed earlier on
Councillor Ind and Councillor Evans are awaiting their licencing training but it
would be a very good thing if all of the rest of us attended. I'm sure you all
agree with that. Yes, Councillor Conlon.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:17:42
There was an excellent attendance of my last licencing training and that was not
unconnected as the lawyers say but in fact that there was a lunch so that that
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:17:54
will always help improve in my limited experience that always helps to improve
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:17:58
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:17:59
attendance. I'm sure we can arrange refreshments.
Councillor Julia Judd - 2:18:05
Councillor Judd. Are there other estates in our diaries?
Sorry I'm trying to get into my outlook.
Councillor Julia Judd - 2:18:17
I have been caught out like this before, only because I've got five diaries which I manage.
It would be brilliant if these could automatically be put into a Councillor's diaries for us,
please. Is that very onerous? Is that OK, Nicky? Thank you so much.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:18:39
We do normally have potential dates for the licencing committee sent out.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:18:50
Yes.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:18:56
Julia.
Julia Gibson, Officer - 2:18:59
Some of them are. So the licencing subcommittee which deals with taxes and streets licence
That is a regular one that we can send out, but it doesn't get called very often
Although there is one on the 25th of June you'll see which is like the first one
We've had for a long time the other one gets called on ad hoc basis
So we wouldn't be able to let you know about the the other one. No, I'm I've got that wrong of my
The
Yeah, so the one that comes every month we've got a slot
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:19:40
That is the set one, that's the one for taxis and street licences.
We can give you those dates.
Is that always on the fourth Thursday?
Yes.
OK, so it's always on the fourth Thursday, that's for the committee where there's five of you.
And then the other one is called on an ad hoc basis, that's for the licencing committee.
Councillor Julia Judd - 2:20:00
All I'm saying, I'm certainly not going to hold offices to account, it's completely, the onus is on me.
All I'm saying is can you please help me out with this because I am quite busy. Yeah. Thank you
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:20:13
Suggestions to demo services ready when as a stat the last item on the agenda of every planning licencing committee
Is met licencing subcommittee and the members of here if you could put after that?
The thing in brackets taxis private higher and street trading that was yours some of those of us with difficult
issues with our memory that it's not
Music festivals.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:20:35
There are five members for the taxis.
Good point.
And three for the others.
Okie dokie.
I think we have done that to death now.
Do we need to vote on this recommendation?
Yes.
Okay, so let's have a look and see what the recommendations are.
First of all, this committee resolves to appoint five members of the committee to
licencing subcommittee taxi, private hire and street trading in accordance with
political proportionality and the wishes of the political groups, three liberal
Democrats, two conservative. Secondly, to note that the licencing subcommittee
membership will comprise the chair or vice chair of planning of the licencing
committee and two other members of the Planning and Licencing Committee drawn on alphabetical
road bases from the remaining members of the Planning and Licencing Committee subject to
their availability and completion of licencing training prior to the participation in a licencing
subcommittee Licencing Act 2003 meeting. I hope that's all clear. Do I have a proposer
for that. Councillor Judge, do I have a seconder? Councillor Brasington will go to the vote.
That recommendation is passed unanimously. We move on to the next item on the agenda,
which is a site inspection briefing.
Do we have any that we are expecting at the moment?
No, not that I'm aware of.
Very disappointing.
Members for July the 1st, if required, myself,
Councillor Watson, Councillor Caul,
Councillor Evans and Councillor Inge.
So if you could hold yourself in residence for that,
which is in three weeks time.
And the licencing subcommittee, which will take place,
that's on the 25th of June and that's Councillors Watson, Judd, Van, Fowles and Braslington.
Councillor Judd.
Councillor Julia Judd - 2:22:53
This is so embarrassing. It is in my diary. Please may I give my apologies here in the
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:23:01
hope that I can recruit a sub now.
Is there anyone who's completed their licencing training who could offer to sub for Councillor
It would have to be somebody from the consort.
Can you do it, Councillor Fowles?
Yes.
It has to be someone from the consortia group.
Can you do it, Councillor Colle?
He's already on record.
Is Thursday the 25th of June at 2 o 'clock?
He could suddenly swap, yes?
Yes. Can I leave you to... Can you do that?
Yes.
They are very interesting, I say. They are very interesting.
Yes.
They are very... There are really unusual meetings.
And it's an incentive to start a mission.
You need to do it.
You need to earn your way back home.
Councillor Fowles, yes.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:24:32
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:24:36
We will look at the agenda and sort that out.
You can't do it.
We will have to find out who else in the Conservative group has done the licencing training.
I don't think we need to sort it out at this very minute, but we need to find...
Two o 'clock.
Two o 'clock, Councillor Besson.
I'm on holiday there.
Order.
You're on holiday?
I'm on holiday on the 21st of June, yeah.
For four months.
For four months?
All right.
I think it's going to require us to email round to find a substitute,
but we need to do that as a matter of urgency.
Can I ask you to do that?
Yes, of course.
Thank you very much.
All right.
So that's that.
And I think that's the end of business.

There are currently no votes to display