Planning Appeal - Thursday 14 May 2026, 10:00am - Cotswold District Council Webcasting

Planning Appeal
Thursday, 14th May 2026 at 10:00am

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Seat 19
Seat 29
Seat 19
Seat 41
Seat 19
Seat 23
Seat 19
Seat 19
Seat 19
Seat 34
Seat 30
Seat 25
Seat 19
Seat 25
Seat 19
Seat 23
Seat 19
Seat 35
Seat 23
Seat 34
Seat 30
Seat 19
Seat 35
Seat 34
Seat 30
Seat 19
Seat 24
Seat 32
Seat 24
Seat 32
Seat 19
Seat 30
Seat 19
Seat 30
Seat 19
Seat 23
Seat 34
Seat 19
Seat 32
Seat 19
Seat 19
Seat 32
Seat 19
Seat 32
Seat 24
Seat 32
Seat 24
Seat 19
Seat 32
Seat 24
Seat 32
Seat 24
Seat 19
Seat 24
Seat 19
Seat 34
Seat 24
Seat 34
Seat 19
Seat 32
Seat 24
Seat 19
Seat 24
Seat 32
Seat 19
Seat 32
Seat 19
Seat 24
Seat 32
Seat 19
Seat 19
Seat 19
Seat 41
Seat 19
Seat 22
Seat 19
Seat 29
Seat 19
Seat 41
Seat 19
Seat 22
Seat 19
Seat 30
Seat 52
Seat 19
Seat 23
Seat 19
Seat 22
Seat 19
Seat 42
Seat 19
Seat 23
Seat 19
Seat 30
Seat 42
Seat 30
Seat 52
Seat 19
Seat 19
Seat 52
Seat 19
Seat 23
Seat 19
Seat 30
Seat 19
Seat 24
Seat 23
Seat 19
Seat 19
Seat 23
Seat 29
Seat 19
Seat 23
Seat 19
Seat 23
Seat 19
Seat 30
Seat 19
Seat 30
Seat 30
Seat 19
Seat 30
Seat 19
Seat 30
Seat 19
Seat 23
Seat 19
Seat 19
Seat 29
Seat 19
Seat 23
Seat 19
Seat 23
Seat 19
Seat 30
Seat 31
Seat 19
Seat 23
Seat 31
Seat 29
Seat 23
Seat 19
Seat 19
Seat 19
Seat 30
Seat 19
Seat 23
Seat 30
Seat 34
Seat 42
Seat 52
Seat 19
Seat 30
Seat 29
Seat 52
Seat 23
Seat 19
Seat 30
Seat 19
Seat 30
Seat 19
Seat 19
Seat 23
Seat 19
Seat 23
Seat 42
Seat 30
Seat 19
Seat 23
Seat 19
Seat 30
Seat 30
Seat 23
Seat 19
Seat 23
Seat 19
Seat 34
Seat 19
Seat 41
Seat 19
Seat 41
Seat 19
Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

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

Seat 19 - 0:00:09

Okay, good morning, everyone. It's ten o 'clock, so the hearing is now open. Can everyone hear

me okay? Yes.

If there's any hearing problems at any point, just raise your hand and let me know and we

can make some adjustments. For anyone speaking today, you need to turn the microphone on

before you speak and then turn it off after. If everyone can just remember that.

My name is Rachel Hall. I'm the Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State to conduct

the hearing today and to determine the appeals by Hallam Land. The appeal results from the

decision of Cotswold District Council to refuse the outline application for residential development

of up to 54 residential dwellings, Class C3 use,

highway access from the Wurn, new pedestrian routes

and associated landscaping, earthworks, parking,

engineering works and the infrastructure.

All matters reserved except for the access junction

from the Wurn at land north of the Wurn Ledge Lade.

Now would be a good time to turn off mobile phones

or switch them to silent.

As far as I'm aware,

not expecting any fire drills this morning. In the event of a fire alarm the council I'm sure will

direct us, but presumably down the stairs and out the front. Thank you. The hearing today will be

a structured discussion based on the agenda. It's important that everyone understands that I will

lead the discussion, so please direct any questions through me rather than discussing between

yourselves. I have read your supporting statements so you don't need to repeat the points made in

those unless there is something you particularly want to draw my attention to in your evidence

that is relevant and would be helpful to me today. The purpose of today is to enable all

of you to put forward your points of view and to help me to get the information I need

to make the decision. If I don't ask a question on a particular matter, it just means I already

have the information I need. If you think I have missed anything, then please say so.

Before we start the discussion, there are a few formalities I need to run through. Firstly,

just to make you aware that a colleague of mine, Emma Pickenell is here today. She is

just observing. You may see me talking to her, but she is not involved in the appeal

decision at all in any way. If everyone could just refer to me as Inspector rather than

Maam or anything else, I would appreciate it. I need to cheque that I have the names

of everyone who wishes to speak today and their interest in the case so that I can record

it on the decision letter.

Starting with the appellants, please.

Yes.

Brett Coles, landscape.

Chris Neely.

Good morning.

Jamie Roberts, technical planning and affordable housing.

and you instructed by a David yeah and for the council Martin perks principal

Planning officer.

An Asian heritage.

Ryan Mills, landscape.

OK.

Does anyone else wish to speak today?

Richard Harrison, Fairford Town Council.

Richard Harrison.

Steve Trotter, Mayor of Lechley.

Is that from Lechley Town?

No, that's it.

Anyone else?

The event today is being webcast. Does anyone have any objections to this? Does anyone else

intend to film or record the event? I have a copy of the Council's notification letters

confirming the start of the appeal and the location and timing of the event, thank you.

I have copies of representations made in response to the original planning application and the

appeal and I will take these into account in reaching my decision. Can I just cheque

that the appellant has had copies of all of these? I have visited the locality of the

appeal site already so I have a general awareness of the surroundings. However, I will be making

a site inspection later. I don't feel that the visit needs to be accompanied, provided

I have permission to access the site. Does anyone feel that they need to be present?

If it helps, the owner of Butler's Court has agreed access into his garden to see the site

from that side if that would be of use.

Thank you.

My intention is to close the hearing here before the site visit, so it's important that

any comments you wish to make are made before the site visit and before the hearing closes.

We will need to have a discussion about what conditions might be appropriate to allow the

appeal. This is standard procedure and it's not an indication that I've made up my mind

on the appeal, nor will the discussion affect the council's position in relation to the

proposal. I'm not inviting any applications for costs, but if any are to be made, this

should be done here before the site visit. Also to make you aware that I have the power

to initiate a wouldn't award of cost if I feel that any party has behaved unreasonably

and caused unnecessary expense for the other party.

So turning to the main issues, these are set out on the agenda which hopefully everyone

can see. So firstly the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the local

area bearing in mind the special attention that should be paid to the

desirability of preserving the setting as it relates to the special interest of

the nearby grade 2 listed butler's court and stables and its effect on the

setting of lecher aid conservation area and whether the proposal makes adequate

provision for affordable housing self custom -built housing size and mix of

market dwellings biodiversity net gain and financial contributions to library

services with reference to the proposed section 106 planning obligations. Although not a reason

for refusal I also have some questions on flooding in light of concerns raised by first

parties. I'll cover these under other matters and this will help me to reach a view on whether

it needs to be a main issue in the appeal. Does anyone disagree with those main issues

or have any comments at this stage?

Seat 29 - 0:07:49

We were wondering, Inspector, when we might be able to discuss the overall planning balance?

If it comes to this, I think it has matters.

Thank you.

Seat 19 - 0:08:05

So during the discussion I will invite comments from one side and then the other and then

from interested parties. If you want to make a point or feel I'm moving on before you've

said all you want to, please say. If I nod or say yes in response to a point that's being

made it doesn't necessarily mean I agree, it's just an indication that I've understood.

Also, we will be making notes of the discussion, so mainly to ask you to slow down or pause.

As this is a hearing rather than an inquiry, there will be no formal presentation of cases

or cross -examination, so please direct any questions through me.

All documents and evidence should already have been provided. I'm not inviting any,

but it would be helpful to know now if you intend to submit any late evidence.

In respect to the submitted plans and drawings, I have the listed plans as agreed in the statement

of common ground, being the application site boundary plan, the parameters plan and proposed

side access. Also the illustrative concept plan in the design and access statement. Highway

improvement works drawing with 11P1 and a culvert location plan. Are there any other

plans that I should be aware of? I've seen two statements of common ground, one for highways

dated the 30th of April 2026 and one with the District Council also dated April 2026.

Are these the current versions?

Seat 41 - 0:09:57

I would just like to say there is one aspect from the statement of common ground with Gloucester

Highways. We are concerned that they have only partially quoted MPPF paragraph 116.

and seven important words at the end of that, which is taking into account all reasonable

future scenarios. Maybe I can touch on that when we come back to our opportunity to talk

about other issues.

Seat 19 - 0:10:27

Has there been any change to the development plan and the status of the emerging development

plan since the position agreed in the statement of common ground?

Seat 23 - 0:10:39

Not formally but just as an update of where the local plan is going in terms of progress.

It's intended to submit it for regulation 19 in August. So we'll go to cabinet I think

on August 12th with a public consultation a couple of weeks after that. So that's the

regulation 19 and it's intended to submit it for examination before Christmas. So that's

That's the kind of direction of travel of the local plant.

Seat 19 - 0:11:07

In terms of timing, I'll take a short break late morning and at lunchtime and early afternoon.

And I intend to carry the site visit out before the end of the day.

Does anyone have any issues in relation to timing that they wish to raise?

And are there any questions about the procedural side of the hearing at this point?

So just by way of background, as a high -level summary before we get into the detail, the

proposal relates to two plots of land on the western edge of Lechlade, adjacent to the

settlement boundary. The main site is proposed to accommodate up to 54 dwellings with access

from the WURN. A previous outline application was submitted for up to 100 dwellings, including

a care home, employment uses and cemetery extension, but was withdrawn in 2003. Two

subsequent applications were submitted and subsequently refused in January 2024. There

is agreement between the main parties that the fourth, fifth and sixth reasons for refusal

could be resolved subject to finalising the draught section 106 agreements. Those reasons

relate to impacts on biodiversity, biodiversity net gain, affordable housing, self or custom

built housing plots, size and mix of open market houses and financial contributions

to library services. The appeal site is adjacent to an allocated housing site known as L19.

Applications for housing have come forward on that site, the most recent of which was

for seven dwellings and this was refused on the 20th of April. Is that a fair high level

summary of the circumstances surrounding the site.

Thank you.

Okay, so that covers Item Agenda Number 1.

Unless anyone has anything to add, we can move on to Number 2.

Turning to the main issues for discussion, I now have a series of questions that I would

like to ask the main parties which will help you to reach a decision on the appeals. Before

we get into those questions I wanted to cheque if interested parties wish to speak now if

you have something prepared or would you be happy to contribute as we go through the agenda.

Seat 19 - 0:13:42

If you are happy to raise your hand if you want to say anything specific during the course

of the discussion and then if you haven't covered everything we can come back to it.

Seat 19 - 0:14:05

In relation to character and appearance, the council finds conflict with local plan policy

EN1 and EN4 and neighbourhood plan policy D1. Whereas the appellant reaches the conclusion

that it would be consistent with those policies. Can the appellant talk through how they reach

that view, taking into account their landscape evidence, which finds that the landscape effects

of the proposal on completion would be moderate to adverse, reducing to minor adverse in the

long term?

Seat 34 - 0:14:56

So my evidence sets out from a landscape and visual perspective, this is a very logical

location for development.

Landscape and visual effects would be localised and extent.

The site is located alongside the settlement edge and the built -up area of Lechelade in

between two allocations for development. In terms of the impact on the site itself from

a landscape character position, the evidence base through the local plan has considered

the site to be of medium sensitivity. We agree with that approach, sorry judgement.

Features of local value around the site are effectively the mature trees and boundary

hedgerows which help to enclose the site. They're all protected and dedicated in areas of green

space which can be reinforced with new habitat creation. So from a landscape perspective our

judgments are that at year one on completion the impact on the site itself

would be of moderate adverse effect. In the longer term with the benefits of

green infrastructure which includes wood and planting, tree cover, green space etc

the adverse landscape adverse effects on the site reduce to minor adverse. So in

the impact as would be expected for any sort of development on a

Greenfield site is limited and localised

Thank you, and do you consider that any conflict arises with those policies?

So policy EN4 that talks about natural and historic landscapes, so I'm not going to talk

to historic landscape, that's the evidence to me, but EN4 part 1 requires, says development

will be permitted where it does not have a significant detrimental impact on the natural

and historic landscape. We say there is a moderate harm in year one on completion and

then Mr Coles has talked about the effect of the green infrastructure and its maturing

which then reduces the harm.

So looking at policy EN4, it's not considered that there is a significant detrimental impact.

Thank you.

Can I just add to that, if I may, that one of the strands of the policy EN4 is delivering multifunctional green infrastructure,

which is part of the, which is delivered by the scheme.

And then in relation to EN1.

Do you have any comments on that?

EN1 again requires, it's the duality of the natural and historic environment again and

it requires new development where appropriate to promote protection, conservation and enhancement

of historic and natural environment.

I think we apply the same judgement in respect to the natural environment in terms of landscape.

Historic environment, you will hear from Dr Mealy, but we say no harm.

So in accordance with that policy.

And the natural environment parties, as you know, are agreed that this is not in contention.

proposals have been designed to respect and be sensitive to existing trees,

retained trees, hedgerows, additional planting. We have a biodiversity net gain

on and off site of at least 10 % that will be provided through improvements to

existing habitats. The off -site to be secured through 106, we'll get to that I'm

sure and then as Mr. Cole says a multifunctional open space resource

that is designed for landscape and drainage benefit.

So our position is very much that we are in accordance with EN1.

Q. And also with respect to the native and policy D1?

A. Yes.

D1 has got four components.

The first one is respecting views into and out of the town and B, not adversely affecting

the character of the town.

Our position is the proposal is not going to harm views in and out of the town.

It's not adversely affecting the qualities, the character of the town.

The site has limited and localised effects and our position is certainly that good quality

design can provide an attractive entrance to Lechlade.

Part C is to conform with the Cotswold design code or its successor document.

The code is an appendix to the local plan.

There is no reason why development coming forward on this site cannot

comply with that condition. It's a successful design code and has achieved

good quality development in Letchlade and in the wider district.

There is a... shall I stop?

Okay.

There is a policy in the local plan that refers to the Cotswold design code, that is policy

EN2, design of the built natural environment, and that requires development to accord with

the Cotswold design code. That is not a policy that is in dispute, it wasn't referred to

and the reasons for refusal.

The fourth point, point D,

is to conform to the character of the local area

and it refers to appendix seven.

And this is the landscape and character

urban fringe areas assessment.

We're assessment area four, which is the Fairford approach.

And I'll quote, it refers to the Gateway site at the roundabout of being poor quality and

doesn't look inviting.

It states development here is encouraged but will need to reflect the overall character

of the area.

It does say with larger property set within their own grounds or a statement building

and that suburban development would not be acceptable.

and I think our position is we agree it's not inviting.

The site certainly appears as land awaiting development.

There are material considerations

that prevent a strict application

of that character assessment

around the larger property set with their own grounds.

for reasons of provision of housing, affordable housing, the weight of the housing need, the

framework that requires efficient use of land and of course we have a condition that was

that is part of the agreed list of conditions that have been submitted to yourself that

are looking at a mix of homes that are reflective of local need. The committee report refers

to expressly a significant weight to be given to the provision of a mix of homes where no

more than 20 % are for beds and larger.

So there's a bit of a, I mean, policies push and pull in different directions, but there

is a bit of a conflict between what is said in D1D around the type of dwelling, the larger

dwellings that affordable housing in the Cotswold policy is for developments of 11 and above.

But also the neighbourhood plan policy H5 requires development to deliver a housing

mix that meets local needs.

So for that reason we don't see that there needs to be a strict or should be a strict

application of that part of that character assessment.

Okay, thank you. Would the Council like to respond on any of those points?

Seat 30 - 0:25:32

Okay, I'll start kind of from the beginning again from a landscape point of view if that's

Seat 25 - 0:25:37

okay. So from the Council's point of view in terms of the impacts on the landscape character

of the site in its immediate context.

We're not differing too much from the appellant

in terms of the site's sensitivity is medium

and the magnitude of change would be high medium

at completion, sorry.

The differing of judgments is very much

in terms of the overall effect.

So we're of the judgement that it would be moderate

to major adverse.

And that's primarily just due to the scale of change

change. We've weighted it higher because of the density and the pattern of development

and taking into consideration the town character assessment as part of the Lech -Leh neighbourhood

plan and the essence of suburbanisation of this site. So in our view, the magnitude of

change is weighted slightly higher, which would then be air completion, moderate major

inverse reducing to moderate at year 15. In terms of the policies themselves, policy EN2

where the judgement that proposals need to respect the character and distinctive appearance

of the locality and therefore that suburbanization would be of detriment to the locality. In

terms of policy EN4, again, it requires that proposals will take account of landscape and

historic landscape character and local distinctiveness, again, we're of the judgement that the suburbanisation

of that site would be against that policy.

It's also worth noting that in Policy EN4 it does make the point about significance,

but it also does say for the avoidance of doubt, the term significant in the context

of Policy EN4 and EN6 is used in the general sense of an impact that matters or is important,

Rather than any specific definition relates to the preparation of environmental impact assessments or similar

So in weight of that the judgement of a moderate major adverse harm on the site's landscape character

And at the distinct and at the district level landscape character with deeming that to be significant in terms of this scheme

And then finally policy d1 as part of the let's shake neighbourhood plan, which has already been raised in regard to

area for Fairford approach

and the reference to that suburban development would not be acceptable.

Thank you.

Seat 19 - 0:28:13

Question for the council. The opponents landscape statement refers to a study by

the District Council on white consultants from November 2015 which

considers the appeal site to that of the appearance of having been prepared for

development and having a similar character to the adjacent site L19. What

are the council's thoughts on that assessment of the landscape character of

Seat 25 - 0:28:45

the appeal sites relative to the allocated housing site? Repeat that again

please. The landscape statement by the appellant refers to a study by the

district council and white consultants.

And that refers to the appeal site

as having been prepared for development,

having an appearance of having been prepared for development

and having a similar character to the adjacent site L19.

And what's your thoughts on that?

Sorry.

Yeah, so in terms of the appeal site

and the side that was assessed as part of that White's paper,

they are slightly different.

One obviously sits further south next to the major road infrastructure.

One sits further into what we class as the rural context of Lech Laid, which sits to

the rear of that.

Given the vegetation surrounding that and the general appearance of that site, we would

argue that it has a more agricultural rural context and character than the site that's

Seat 19 - 0:29:50

on the forefront of the roadside.

Seat 23 - 0:29:52

Can I just add to that if that's possible? The 2015 report was done prior to the adoption

of the current local plan and therefore the local plan undertook a landscape assessment

itself in terms of appropriate site allocations. It considered there was a difference between

the current allocated site and the land to its north and excluded the land to the north,

even taking into account those comments in that white consultants report. So the local

plan identified there was a landscape visual difference between the site

currently allocated and that now proposed for housing so things have

moved on a bit from that report and undertaken in 2015.

Seat 19 - 0:30:37

Seat 35 - 0:30:45

Does the appellant wish to respond? Yeah I mean I think from my view I agree with

the White's assessment in 2015 that the site does appear to be ready for development. The

allocated site and the appeals site are very similar in the fact that they are effectively

can't be farmed because they're too small, they're unmanaged, they have urban influences

from the large roundabout, the wide highway road, the footway, cycleway, street lighting,

highway signage, dog bins. So any sense of rurality has been diluted by those influences.

So from my perspective I agree with the White's review that it is and appears to be a site

ready and waiting for development. I think the White's study in 2015 is of

relevance and it located the site within parcel L31 and it came to the conclusion

that this area was of medium sensitivity to development and it made it very clear

that it was an area that was well contained by hedgerows and trees and presented an opportunity

for development. I think the emerging local plan, there is a new document that came out

November 25, which is the assessment of broad strategic development locations. And that,

again, sets out the same sort of view, if you like, that's been put forward over the

last few years, that this is a location for development, again, concluding that it's a

medium sensitivity and that looked at various criteria including landscape

character, setting, natural character, historic character, they came to a

judgement on medium sensitivity and then it quotes a quote it says some of the

southwestern fields could potentially accommodate development as part of an

urban extension.

Any comments on that?

Seat 23 - 0:33:23

Go back to the emerging local plan and the design to the west of the settlement isn't

to be allocated for housing in the emerging local plan. I know that hasn't come public

yet. The intention is to focus the allocation on the 150 house scheme that's currently into

the north of the town. That's possibly going to be a site allocation going forward. But

the local plan has not set forward or put forward this area of land to the west of the

settlement as a potential future allocation site and that's what will be in the Regulation

19 document but clearly I can't make that public but that's just the direction of travel

that that's going in.

Seat 34 - 0:34:05

All right, sorry could I just ask for that if I may. Figure 10 of the landscape case includes a constraints plan around Leche Lade. I think it's very helpful to review that because it sets out the effectively the environmental constraints around Leche Lade in terms of heritage.

and significantly flooding. I think it's worth just reviewing the potential growth in lech

laid and it's clear that there are limited places for development.

Seat 30 - 0:34:59

The landscape assessment that was carried out is 2015, but large parts of it are included

in the Sheila in 2021.

This didn't result in allocation of this site,

but it is included and there is a plan of the areas

L31C and B, the assessment date, April 2021,

and the discussion related to the landscape assessment undertaken by white consultants

is included within that assessment. That, Sheila, updated in 2021 must have been of

some relevance. I think we would also say that at the time of the allocations, the housing

requirement was not what it was today.

Seat 19 - 0:36:27

Can you explain the extent to which your findings on the visual effects of the appeal scheme

take into account the variation in leaf cover between summer and winter months?

As part of the landscape initial appraisal we take into account seasonal variations so we take into

account the impact and effect of the scheme during the winter months when there's likely to be greater

visibility and also in the summer months to come to our judgments. We've concluded that the site has

as a restricted visual envelope on account of the low -lying nature of the

landscape, the lack of elevated vantage points, the containment created by the

built -up area and fairly substantial tree cover around the site and in the

immediate landscape. The visual effects we conclude are localised. There's an

agreement in the statement of common ground between ourselves and the council

that visual effects are localised. So effectively the impact from a visual perspective is predominantly

from the road users coming into Lechlade and they have fleeting views and experience at

speed. So we have to say an agreed view on that the visual effects are localised and

limited in extent.

Seat 35 - 0:38:11

Can you hear me?

My name is Steve Trotter, I'm the Mayor of Lechlade and Chair of the Town Council.

I represent the residents of Lechlade who have been opposing the development of this site for now over 10 years.

It was considered and rejected when we did the Schlar Stage, the neighbourhood plan which I wrote, local plan

and has been comprehensively rejected by CDC's Principal Planning Officer and the full planning committee on repeated occasions.

I thought we would see the end of this application, but here we are again today.

Ledge Lake is the smallest principal settlement in the Cotswolds.

Its infrastructure and services are not designed to support significant development and expansion of population.

This is recognised for the neighbourhood plan and the local plan strategies, which allocated only a small development at this site,

and promised community infrastructure which has never been delivered.

The site is in a very sensitive location in the countryside and is the first application

for development outside of the Lechele settlement boundary.

This application would mean significant encroachment of residential development into the open countryside

to the detriment of the rural character appearance and setting of Lechele.

Lechele Town Council, Fairford and Kempsil town councils and over 100 residents have

submitted sustained and consistent objections to the development of this field for many

reasons set out in the reports as you read.

Letchlade's Town Council view is that the appeal scheme is contrary to policies D1 and

H8 of our neighbourhood plan. The impacts that would arise from the scheme include settings

impact on the list of buildings adjacent to the site and also in retention of the setting

of the Letchlade Conservation Area.

This informed the neighbourhood plan approach to plan for limited scale development on this

western side of the Ledge Light set out in Policy D1 which we discussed.

These areas of Cotswolds are very sensitive to change and the adjacent land has valuable

habitat sites.

The development will give rise to further lack of capacity in local employment, services

and infrastructure and will encourage commuting by car.

it has very poor pedestrian access.

The surrounding areas to the south side have repeatedly been subject to devastating flooding over the last few years.

There has been no consultation by the developer with the town council to address any of our concerns.

Taken together, this scheme impacts on the town, its important sites and the cumulative impact of other MPPF

policies mean that there are few benefits from this reverse development.

and these are significantly outweighed by its impacts and this should lead to the appeal

being dismissed.

I would also like to refer you to our summary statements which you have got.

Thank you.

I wanted to return to the question you asked about seasonal variation because Core Document

119 which is the landscape and visual appraisal has two so he asked you to

turn them up now but there are two helpful references that allow you to see

that they have been taken into account paragraph 5 .2 refers to the fact that

field work was done in July 2016 and March 22 and says that that provides an

understanding of seasonal variation and then in 531 of the same document there

is an express statement that views could be worse in the winter months and

seasonal differences have been factored into the assessment process.

I guess I will add to that is that in terms of best practise we have made the assumption

that the effects of year one would be based on winter views and then those that year 15

would be summer views with vegetation, hence why there is a reduction in impacts. That

the assumption we've made from our point of view and that's why we've agreed those.

Yes, sorry. So year one is in theory worst case scenario in terms of development and

then in year 15 best case through establishment, maturity and leaf cover.

Could you point me to a map or maps where I can see the labelled footpaths, the designated

footpaths and then also the unofficial routes that you've been protecting?

In the landscape and visual appraisal, which is 1 .19, figure 1 shows the location of the

designated public footpaths within the context of the site and the edge of lecture laid.

Figure 4 in the same document shows the visual receptors that were assessed.

and Figure 4A shows the locations of the viewpoints in the LVA which includes the designated public

footpaths to the north and also the informal undesignated routes around the fields to the

north of the site.

Which one was that? Sorry. The last one.

Yes, figure 4A. And the corresponding figures in the LVA are of the photographs, the baseline photographs.

Just after, in relation to the designated book parts, one which has labels and which says which one is which?

Which one is which? Well the figure one, the green dash line are the public footpaths.

But do they have different reference numbers?

They do have different reference numbers, yes. The reference numbers are in the LVA.

Public footpath 11, public footpath 10, 6 and 9. And they are all connected effectively

to create a single walking route.

And so the unofficial routes, are those visible on the aerial photograph?

Yes they are visible on the aerial photograph and they're clear on the

on the ground effectively. It's the area to the north of the Wern and Stevens Close, the large

field which is effectively the scheduled monument. That's the area where there is desire lines

effectively so that the local public can walk the field or access the designated footpath.

And on the aerial photograph you can kind of see the dark lines actually made out on that.

Does the Council consider that development of the allocated housing site and the allocated

employment site would alter the effect of the appeal scheme on the character of the

surrounding area?

Seat 34 - 0:47:29

It's difficult to make judgement on that given we don't know what proposals necessarily would

come forward on those adjacent sites. However, we would have to assess that on a case -by -case

basis really to see what the character of those sites that come forward and then the

influence that would have on this site.

I think it's probably worth just your intention. Obviously, the allocated sites had two applications

since 2018 and both have been refused. So it's not the case because it's allocated.

any development on that is suitable. We are looking for development that is responsive

and sensitive to that entrance and doesn't include green infrastructure and creates a

positive entrance to the town and there's been a struggle so far from the schemes that

come in for that to be demonstrated. So I don't think it's the case that if any scheme

is built there and the allocation is for nine, which is quite different from 54, that it

would need to preserve and enhance that setting and entrance into the tank. Equally the employment

site is an existing farmyard with utilitarian agricultural type buildings. The employment

uses if it was to be developed we would be looking for something similar and still retain

the agricultural character of that site, utilitarian kind of plain buildings and also reinforce

the historic association of the farmyard with the listed buildings. So there is scope to

development in both of those but they are need sensitive sensitive handling so they

are respectful of those particular locations. Obviously conservation officers in landscape

would be able to comment more on that but hopefully that explains it in a bit more detail.

I think from a landscape perspective if the allocated site comes forward and is built

out before the appeal scheme then there would clearly be a further urbanising

influence on the character of the appeal site and on the character of this edge of

Lechelade. And development on the appeal site would be observed within that

context of existing housing to the south. From a visual perspective the

approach from the A417 would again be changed because you'd have housing in

immediate foreground and any development on the appeal site would be seen within

that context and views of the appeal site will effectively be filtered and

obscured by intervening built development. I appreciate there's no

scheme put forward on the allocated site presently but I think you can make those

conclusions that

That is the that's the impact and effect of development in that location

And the influence it would have on landscape character of the appeals side

And the the urbanising effect it would have for visual receptors

Seat 30 - 0:50:40

Sorry if I

inspect if I may and

I'm not going to give judgement around the effect but just to say that the fact

that there are allocations and to the northeast of this site is a material

consideration it is relevant and it demonstrates that the council have

accepted change.

Seat 19 - 0:51:21

And does the council consider that the development of the allocated site would screen the proposal

from the conservation area to a certain extent?

Do you consider that the development of the allocated site would screen the proposal from

the conservation area to a certain extent?

Seat 24 - 0:51:45

Again, it's very difficult to say too much because we don't have an accepted scheme.

In principle, it would mitigate it from the road.

How much entirely depends on what we actually do, but that is when you look directly from

the south.

As you approach up towards the roundabout, of course, there will be a difference between

seeing a narrow development in the fronts of the road that is completely in character

with the traditional urban grain of lechlade where development spread along the roads,

And that would be very different to approaching and seeing a solid line of development.

Whether screened or not, you will still be aware of it being there.

So it's, and Darington was sort of a hamlet on the edge of that late laterally division.

It was much softer.

So the softness of that approach is quite important.

But even the other entrances to actually historically, you had development pretty much one house

deep along the road.

So the shallowness of development along the road is an appropriate part of the urban grain.

And we think that would have a very different impact to seeing a solid line of development

as you approach, which would give the appearance of entering a much larger, more urbanly developed

town.

And the context of the appeal side is the roundabout that was put in, because unfortunately

the roadworks and the roundabout, the roundabout does then give you the feeling that you're

entering the settlement.

So that development very much relates to that.

So we feel that although it would potentially, if we ever get an agreed scheme, because we

still have not got an agreed scheme. If we have got an agreed scheme it might

potentially soften the impact to a degree but not enough that I think we

would feel that it would be acceptable and that degree is itself questionable

Seat 32 - 0:53:19

given the lack of any scheme. I think Inspector I'll pick up that point if I

may. I understand the council's position on the allocated housing site to be that

that there could be an acceptable scheme subject to the landscape treatment of the edge on

the way into town because they're concerned about that.

That being so, even leaving aside the number of houses, there would be filtering of use

of the appeal site.

And housing development of any scale on that site is necessarily going to interpose visually.

I want to pick up a point made about the linear character and grain of the settlement that

was just observed, because I think it's been suggested that the appeal site would vary

from that, but if you take up any one of the aerial photographs, and you may have seen

yourself on your visit, and just for your note, I'll refer to figure 510 of my report.

of the conservation area and village or town on the road out from the west has already been expanded materially to the north,

starting, as I understand it, in the early 2000s.

So that doesn't, we're getting into the conservation area point here, but that doesn't undermine the understanding of that part of the conservation area.

And, of course, that's development that immediately abuts the conservation area, whereas the appeals

site, and I know we'll talk about it more, doesn't abut the conservation area boundary

and has interposing development with it anyway at the moment. And certainly my assessment

of impact on the conservation area doesn't rely on the development of the allocated site.

I've undertaken a free -standing assessment, however and obviously it's a material consideration.

The final point about the approach to the conservation area is also the approach to the town.

And obviously there is a large roundabout with signage, street signs and street lights,

which effectively brings the urban edge of the settlement to that point in any event.

Thank you.

Seat 24 - 0:55:53

I think the appeal site is one of the serious concerns.

It seems that it's dependent on the site to the south.

There is no acceptable scheme for the site to the south for 10 years we haven't had it.

With development on the south, there may be filtering to a degree whether that would be

enough to overcome the concerns that I don't think, from our perspective, it wouldn't,

but it would mitigate it. But there is no scheme on the table. And without the development

of the site to the south, this denser development of 54 houses sticking out into the open countryside

set back from the road will be terribly uncharacteristic for the urban grain of the settlement. And

even then, to go from a development of nine houses on the front to very low density development

to a development of 54 houses, we're increasing the density that's being pulled back from

road which is again very uncharacteristic. Normally you have greater

density towards the road and then it softens and breaks up as you go towards

the countryside and you have a softer more filtered edge of settlement

development. So in both ways our feeling is this site and this development will

be terribly uncharacteristic to the setting of the conservation area and

therefore would not preserve it.

Seat 32 - 0:57:05

May I just comment? I don't think there's an objection on design and density to

this development and certainly not one that relates to the conservation area.

And I think in what's just been said, the conservation area effectively is being conflated

with the settlement and of course they're two different matters.

Seat 19 - 0:57:35

The design mindset statement at paragraph 5 .10 refers to a density of residential development

across the built area of up to 36 dwellings per hectare. Is that calculated based on the

parcel of land where housing is proposed or does it take into account the other separate

Seat 30 - 0:57:57

parcel. It's in effect this sort of net density so that's the yellow area on the

Seat 19 - 0:58:09

parameter plan the area warehousing is proposed. And that is described as

broadly consistent with residential development across Ledge Lane as a whole.

Seat 30 - 0:58:23

Can you tell me how that compares to the density of existing housing in the

There is a mix of densities that you can point to intellectually.

You've got higher density indicative of a tighter historic core.

You've got lower density, let's characterise it with suburban development that's more indicative

of late 20th century estates.

You've got to be quite careful with density.

it's a construct and you can't really test it or consider it without a

proper housing mix. I think if you looked at plot coverage, very large detached

dwellings without buildings and large garages often occupy more or the same

amount of land so it's quite a crude dwellings per hectare is quite a sort of

instrument to consider density. Again I think if you look at the

sort of Cotswold design code as one reference to density it's far more

encouraging I should say or more prescriptive probably is the right

word to look at the treatment of materials in terms of ensuring

development comes forward that is in keeping with the character.

And so it is through the use of architectural treatment,

the local vernacular, appropriate building materials,

that actually you more effectively deliver development that is in keeping with the character.

So I think it's the matters that come through at Reserve Matters,

and of course there is the local plan policy that requests accordance with

that design code. I think we must have also regard to the fact, I've already

talked about the factors that ask material considerations in that go to

density and go to numbers which is around the provision of affordable

housing, the benefit that you secure from that, the requirement of the local plan

policy H1 around the mix of house types, the restriction in numbers of large

detached dwellings.

Inspector you've taken us to the design and access statement and in there there is an

administrative master plan that shows how up to 54 dwellings could be laid out.

That's just one way that the development could be delivered.

Seat 19 - 1:01:17

Seat 23 - 1:01:24

Right initial comment, I'm sure Justin will say something as well. Yes I mean

it's as Justin mentioned it's fairly common to have quite high density

the centre and which philtres out to lower densities towards the edge of settlements.

In the case of the western part of Lecheleid the higher density element is to the east

of Butler's Court. You have Butler's Court which is set in quite a large open area which

transitions into the open countryside and even the two houses to the south are in quite

spacious plots which are kind of not characteristic of the housing estates to the east. So you

are going from as you head out westwards you are having urban housing estates then quite

soft transition edge of settlement location which is fairly typical of Cotswold settlements

and then if this development was perceived you would go back to another urban fairly

high density housing development so you kind of it doesn't really reflect the settlement

pattern in that respect. It's not filtering out into the landscape. It's just going back

into being a high density urban development which we don't think responds particularly

sensitivity, sensitively to the edge of the settlement.

Justin, may I answer that?

Seat 34 - 1:02:32

Absolutely.

And the design code does make reference

to new development to form a gentle transition

to the open countryside at the settlement edge, which

is picking up on this traditional characteristic,

filtering of a littering of density and scale.

And can I just add a couple of things?

Inspector, the starting point has to be the council's reasons for refusal.

And reason for refusal one does not mention density.

It's a point about the principle of housing development, not the defects of a particular

number of units.

So in my submission, this is a John E. Cumbley argument from the council.

Secondly, when one's appraising density and the acceptability of it, in my submission,

it's highly material to bear in mind that this is an authority with a 1 .8 year housing

land supply in a district with very considerable constraints. And so we would say that enhances

the sense of making the most efficient use of land that you can as the framework directs

in paragraph 130C and that is a paragraph to which we are directed to give particular

attention in paragraph 11 D2 of the framework and everyone agrees that we

have a paragraph 11 D case, council have a point to make about 11 D1 which will

no doubt come on to you. So in my submission given wider facts the

factors that are at play in this inquiry in this situation there is a very great

incentive to make the most appropriate maximum use of the site that you can.

I mean just to clarify the reason for refusal to say talk about the rural character of the

settlement and the appraisal would have an urbanising impact on the locality. As we've

set out this would be an urban housing estate going out into the urban countryside so I

think the urbanising issue is tied into the fact that it's 54 houses so I don't see there's

conflict of that particular.

Excuse me.

Just one final, if I may make one final point.

And it follows on in reason for Riffi -Hoozel 3,

As I said, there is no mention of density, but equally and more importantly in the council's statement of case on the conservation area

There's no mention of excessive density

So it's a point. I've not come prepared to answer

Seat 19 - 1:05:38

So I'm going to move on to setting into greater illicit buildings unless anyone has any other

Seat 32 - 1:05:47

comments on character of the countryside and landscape.

Just an observation about the conservation area points, Madam Inspector.

I'm sorry.

There is no adopted appraisal for the conservation area.

And I just thought it would just be, if it helps you, obviously, because you have information

in my report about its character and appearance.

I'm in your hands, really, if you want me to summarise that for you or explain why I've

identified that the site doesn't contribute to the special interest of the conservation

area.

But I'm in your hands, you have the information.

Seat 19 - 1:06:25

I don't have any questions on that.

No, thanks.

Seat 19 - 1:06:31

So in terms of the settings of the grace view listed, but let's go to the stables.

Is there currently an access from the rear of Butler's Court, all the stables, into the

Seat 32 - 1:06:48

No, not to the best of my knowledge.

It's a heavily vegetated hedge which falls within the appellant's land and then there

is a residential, which you can see by looking through the hedge, and then you can see there's

a residential boundary with garden trees and an area of land between that boundary and

and then another garden area that's

at the back of the listed building, so no access.

There is a gate from the north of Butler's Court

into the area meted by the agricultural buildings

that then opens straight through into the appeal site.

And there's also a gap in the hedge that it isn't a path,

but it has the appearance of a pathway you can actually

see through from the garden into the appeal site.

At least there was two days ago.

Well, there's no key.

There was a reference to a access from Butler's Court

to the agricultural buildings that's just been made.

I'm not familiar with that, but I would just make the observation

that the stable to the north became a residential property

and is enclosed by a wall.

So I'm not aware and couldn't observe any connexion between Buckers Court and the former

farm buildings to the north.

I walked through it till Monday, so it's definitely there.

And if you go out on site and visit, you will see it for yourself.

Is it something that you can point out on a plan?

Photograph.

Do we have a large scale plan of the site anywhere?

Right.

I mean, it's a vehicular access with metal electric gates

that the owner took me through as a shortcut

through to get back onto the hillside.

I wonder through you if I can just clarify,

is it a field gate that lies to the north

of the listed stables because I walked through that.

No, I'm talking about it's a pair of metal gates

which leads from the butler's court garden to

the edge of the track that then leads into

the appeal site from the north which is the continuation of the access route.

I have seen that.

It doesn't open onto the field, it opens onto the track. You can see that yourself.

So it was somewhere along this edge here because his garden is round here so you

could get up onto this track here which is in the track that continues round

there.

So there's, you get to there, to there.

And then there is the...

If you put it on myself, I'm sure we can agree.

Somewhere along here?

Let me just go bring it myself.

Yes, that's the listed building.

Yes, I think that's right.

Thank you.

Seat 19 - 1:10:07

So do you think that there was a history of the building being built?

historic access from butler's courts or stables into the appeal site?

Seat 32 - 1:10:35

We only have information about that from a certain point in time and I can answer the

question simply with reference to the first edition ordinance survey map.

So if you have my report, which is CD 4 .4, and within that you turn to internal page

39, which I think is digital page 41, since you're working that way.

And it looks like this.

It's a coloured first edition ordinance survey.

You have that.

It's figure 6 .8 in the lower left.

So you can identify Butler's Court as the tinted red building,

which to the right has a little formal layout.

Do you see the symmetrical path coming from it?

And it has a collection of buildings to the rear,

which are the earlier phases of the development of the house.

Now, I can't identify on that plan any direct access

to the field behind.

What there is is what would be the service range

of the building running north -south, access

to some sort of yard with a service building in it, beyond which there is another yard

and an orchard.

So there were enclosures serving, I surmise, I think reasonably, residential purposes of

the house to the rear.

Before then you got to the boundary with the appeal site.

So I don't think there was or has been at least since the date of this map, which is

160 years, any such access.

And in fact, there doesn't at that date

appear to have been any access directly from the house

and its garden to the farm to the north,

because you see there is a wall immediately north

of the listed building and separate farmyard access

to the north of that.

And that would be consistent,

that interpretation is consistent with the way

these vernacular farm complexes developed over the course of the 18th century

and the owners increased or formalised.

Their buildings made them grander, more cosmopolitan, more middle class.

They wanted to sort of separate themselves from the agricultural side of their holdings.

So as far as I can tell, the only direct access to the field was the farm yard to the north

and not from the listed building.

So it's a long answer to your question, but I wanted to take it to the plant.

And I do recommend that plant to you, Inspector, because it shows the pleasure grounds of the

house were actually oriented away from the appeal site and towards the south, because

that's what that arrangement shows to the south.

Thank you.

Yes, the house does have a defined domestic curtilage that is absolutely common of farmhouses

in the district, not just in the 18th century but beforehand and afterwards, and that does

not denote a separation in the uses of the farmhouse from the farmstead.

So the fact that there is a wall shown, that is absolutely characteristic.

It's simply dividing the pleasure gardens from the working farm yard.

So it was still a single entity and as it was said, there was direct access from the

farm stage immediately to the north of the house into the field, which can be seen in

the old aerial photographs.

As can the fact that the hedgerow at that time was a comparatively modest hedgerow with

some interspaced trees in it.

So there would have been considerable visual

permeability between the gardens of the house and the field.

I think it's just a main point of difference between us

on interpretation on the basis of this plan, the first edition

ordinance survey, which is relatively accurate.

My interpretation is that the arrangement of spaces

to the south and to the west of Butler's Court

provided a really clear separation

from the field that is the appeal site today,

or the appeal site today, which you'll see on this plan,

inspector, was a single large open field and not divided as it is now by the wern, which

road I'm sure you've gathered runs straight east -west across the pleasure grounds of Butler's

Court. Thank you.

Seat 24 - 1:16:04

Yes, the first edition map does show a continuous row of trees along this boundary, a single

line of trees, quite different to the blocks of screening that are specifically shown to

the east of the house.

The second edition OS map, which does show the blocks of trees as specific screening,

shows nothing to the west of the house, which will again suggest this was an indication

of a hedgerow with trees rather than a conscious block

of screening.

So views would have been filtered, not entirely blocked.

And the aerial photograph from, I think, it's 1928,

clearly shows that there were just limited large trees

along an otherwise fairly modest hedgerow.

Seat 32 - 1:16:46

Yeah.

So I just figure that's been referred to as my figure,

6 .9 on page 40, which is the next page in your bundle.

That's my report.

It's 42 Digital.

That's the photograph that's just been referred to.

The core of Butler's Court, I think you can see, is the larger building towards the centre

of that photograph.

And then you see the extension of buildings and yards between the listed building and

the appeal site where there is a heavily vegetated hedge.

And I count three mature trees at that point.

And that hedge now is more heavily developed.

Seat 24 - 1:17:25

In our appendix 11 of our report I actually zoom in on that photograph to

look at it more closely and you can see quite clearly the scale of the trees in

relation to the scale of the hedgerow.

Seat 19 - 1:17:50

Do you place any importance on the historic association between Butler's Court as a farmhouse

and the appeal site as part of its agricultural land?

So I place very limited weight on that because that historical association is a matter of

fact and in these cases which we often arise, old farmsteads and buildings and land proposed

for housing, I generally look for some physical or tangible functional connexion as between

in the house and the appeal land.

And in this case, because of the interposing areas

of landscape that serve the house and its curtilage

and the pleasure grounds, my judgement

is actually that there's no real tangible evidential value

associated with that historic association.

The owner of the farmhouse and then the tenant

and had control of a very large area of agricultural land anyway across this part of the town.

You will have noticed, I think, in my report where I've coloured in that ownership which

is taken from the tithe map.

This field didn't seem to have any particular relevance to the layout and character of the

principal house.

It was just one of a number of fields and there's no direct access to it.

In any event, and I think importantly, the character of the field has changed so considerably

since 1999.

We don't need to go there, but earlier in my report there are a series of historic aerial

photographs which show the condition of the site when it was agricultural land, the installation

of the roundabout, the cutting of the road, and then also the route or bridleway, I guess,

but anyway the path that goes that comprises the west boundary of the site and north boundary

of the site, which I understand would be the access to the employment allocation to the

north of the listed building. And I think these observations go back to earlier points

made about the change in the character of the land.

It seems to me that infrastructure serving the town and the allocation and the wern really

have eroded the agricultural character of the appeal site and the site that's allocated

to the south.

And with that erosion there is, I think, an even further dilution of association between

the listed building and the land.

Thank you. Yes, we do consider that the appeal site adds to the significance of the listed

building. Butler's Court was part of an historic farmstead. It was the principal house associated

with it, so it functioned as a farmhouse no matter how status. That is of historic significance

and as the Victoria County history itself describes Butler Court as the only outlying

farmstead recorded from mediaeval times. So that is quite significant. The setting

Butler's Court was predominantly rural and agricultural as you would expect for

a farmstead because that was the land that it worked. It was this farm.

Originally there was open views to east and west of agricultural landscape. To

the north obviously we had the farmstead and to the south we had the garden.

Unfortunately to the east which was the highest data side we have had modern

development that has compromised its setting.

Nevertheless, historic England does specifically

say where significance of a heritage asset

has been compromised in the past by unsympathetic development

affecting its setting, according to MPPF planning policies,

consideration still needs to be given

to whether additional change will further detract from

or can enhance the significance of the asset.

And then very importantly, it goes on to say,

negative change would include severing

the last link between an asset and its original setting.

The importance of the site is that it is that last link between an historic farmstead and its open rural setting.

And that is very important.

And you do get some appreciation of that on site visually, but I think it's also very relevant that Historic Kingdom does point out that the significance of setting does not depend on the ability to experience that setting.

It can depend on other factors including historic association.

and it also says that our experience in itself is not dependent solely on visual

factors it can also dependent on other things such as noise, dust, land uses and

historic association and landscape character tranquilly and land use so

all of these things do make a contribute to significance above and beyond

intervisibility or lack of intervisibility so our contention is

that the site makes a considerable impact, contribution to the significance of the asset.

Seat 32 - 1:23:01

Can I ask for the reference about the VCH on the mediaeval origins of this? But anyway,

I don't think I saw it, but I'll just answer those points. Inspector, my assessment is

done on a free -standing basis in line with the historic England guidance. I haven't used

past harm to justify the change. That's not the way I've approached it and don't either.

Just in terms of breaking the last link with the agricultural origins of the listed building,

there is a listed stable building to the north of the listed building, which is obviously

a old stables. And you've heard the council just say in relation to the employment allocation

that they want to retain something of the farmyard character of those buildings. So

So even when and if, well I assume when because it's an allocation, that site comes forward

for employment purposes, the council is looking to retain some of those farmyard characteristics.

So I think it's an overstatement to say that it's severing the last link.

I don't think that's fair.

And then finally on the points that were made, again in relation to historic guidance, of

course, you know, visual considerations are absolutely primary in setting cases because

is it's through sight that we understand, appreciate,

and experience the architectural and historic significance

of the list of building.

Other factors, which are associations around use,

can be relevant, but it's a very fact -specific determination.

So I wouldn't draw any general principles.

Seat 24 - 1:24:33

Thank you.

Gosh, I've forgotten the first point I was going to say.

The second point was, I think, in relation

to the current status of the field.

lots of references have been made to how the fact that the character of the

field has been changed, it's been prepared for development. In fact the

character is very much that of a rural agricultural paddock. The only thing that

is uncharacteristic is the fact that isn't hedgerow separating it from the

current modern road. Apart from that it feels completely consistent with the

landscape immediately beyond it and it does feel open and rural. And the point was in

relation to the historic farmstead. Yes keeping the character and stable was

converted in order to give it a viable use so its character has changed to a

although there was an attempt to preserve it.

And the farmstead is there, but we're

talking about the actual working landscape that

was the raison d 'etre for the farm and the farmstead.

And this is the last link between the working

agricultural landscape and the farm that worked it.

Seat 32 - 1:25:27

It's not a working agricultural landscape

anymore because of the changes.

That was the evidence you have on landscape,

and I don't think it's challenged.

It's too small to be a viable agricultural parcel.

Seat 24 - 1:25:41

The established use is still agricultural, it's never been changed.

Seat 19 - 1:25:49

You asked about the reference to medieval...

Yeah, Mr. Aiten is correct, I checked it. He is correct, I checked it. It's in the VCH.

It has mediaeval origins, the farmstead.

Sorry, where does it say that?

Victoria County History, which is available online, it's an online resource.

It's called British History Online.

So I agree, I hadn't recalled it, but I agree with it.

I hadn't recalled that reference, but I agree with him.

Seat 24 - 1:26:28

The reference, it's in my first original comments and the reference I've taken down here is

It is pages 106 to 121 of

Letchlade, a history of the County of Gloucester,

volume seven edited by M .M. Herbert, Oxford, 1981,

on British History Online.

Seat 19 - 1:27:03

In your heritage statement it says there's one view along the modern lane that does make

a contribution to the former stable's historic interest. Can you clarify which view that

is?

Yes, I think it's for illustration. It is that view that is the most important thing

we pointed out the area from which it's available on the plan with the straight, just a moment ago.

So it's effectively along the lane that comes in.

Looking that way?

Correct, because that's the position from that, from there, and just in front of Congress Board.

And you can see what they did with these, most of these elevation of the stable and then the gable bed.

So that's from within the farm art context.

The land to the rear of the state is heavily vegetated

and is set back from the base.

Can I just add to that?

Seat 34 - 1:28:16

That lane is private. It's a private lane. It's not a publicly

accessible lane, so it's not viewed by the public.

Seat 24 - 1:28:27

Sorry, it is just worth commenting on that, that significance does not depend on

and ability to appreciate significance

does not depend on having public views

in order to be able to see it.

Seat 34 - 1:28:33

I just wanted to make the inspector aware

that it wasn't a public right of way.

Seat 19 - 1:28:43

In relation to that view,

do you consider a condition would be necessary to protect it?

Seat 32 - 1:28:52

As I understand it, there is proposed a landscape buffer

along the eastern edge of the appeal site

and that is going to come up to the line of that lane

and I think that would be sufficient

because it would ensure or prevent any encroachment visually

into that view along the north side of the stable block.

So I think the normal landscape condition leaving it to the local authority

at reserve matter stage would be sufficient.

Seat 24 - 1:29:25

Comment on that particular issue.

Seat 19 - 1:29:37

Those are all my questions on setting.

Seat 24 - 1:29:51

So I think my only comment would be it is worth if you can getting into the grounds crimes of Butler's Court because the experience

sorry, within Butler's Court looking out is quite different from the experience from

Seat 32 - 1:29:58

without looking in. Mr Harrison. Just to be clear, are we finishing item two in the list

or item one because you just mentioned setting we've finished. Are you still to talk about

the special interest on Butler's Court or is that considered as having been discussed?

So I don't have any further questions on the setting.

Yeah, okay.

Just the point I wanted to ask is in terms of the order here, would it be possible before

we talk about the planning obligations to say something about our issues on the highways

impacts because it might be appropriate to bring, to include something in the transport,

the infrastructure obligations to address the issue that we are doing? Could we raise

that before item three rather than waiting until item four after we have discussed the

planning obligations?

That is fine. I suggest we have a short break and when we come back we can start with that.

So if we have...

Inspector, if I may, just to be clear, we wrote Butler's Court to get access to their

land and we got no response.

Clearly, my fellow experts now have been in and you're having an opportunity to go in.

I'm clearly at a disadvantage because I haven't been in and I don't know when the opportunity

to go in is going to be.

if it was possible to arrange access over the lunch break,

so I can see it, because I assume when you go

you're not gonna be taking live evidence on it.

By that point I imagine it's going to close.

That's my concern, and I haven't seen a photograph either.

I would be content with the photograph,

but I haven't been supplied with one.

And you've just heard it took place on Friday

Seat 19 - 1:32:01

and we weren't notified, so.

One option is that you come with me on the site visit, both parties, for that part of

the visit and I can leave the hearing open at that point. It depends if any interested

parties would also like to be there for that.

Well then whether we can get access in the afternoon and when. As I said, I'd be perfectly

Seat 32 - 1:32:35

content to go over lunch because my session is drawing to a close now and there's plenty

of opportunity. Mr. Aiden has the telephone number we can see. Or if he took a photograph

and he can show it to me, that would be acceptable also. We didn't necessarily go. I'm happy

that I've looked from the appeal site into the garden, which isn't even at the back of

the house, so I don't feel it's going to add anything, but I'm just making a sort of procedural

Seat 19 - 1:33:01

point really because we did make an endeavour to get in.

Seat 24 - 1:33:04

The owner of Butler's Court was quite happy for a visit to take place this afternoon.

If you wish to visit separately at lunchtime I can call him but I'm certain that will be

fine.

Seat 32 - 1:33:14

He said he's at home all day today.

If so, whichever you prefer.

Yeah, if it's all right I would prefer to do that and if anything, if, I'm in your hands,

but if there's any point I want to make following on from that I'll have the opportunity to

make it then after I've seen it.

I don't anticipate I will necessarily, but I just feel for the sake of completeness and

Seat 19 - 1:33:36

the circumstances and what was said earlier, that I really do have to see it.

That makes sense if you are able to go over lunchtime and if you have any comments, somehow

you would need to relay them before we finish.

You come back?

I will come back.

Okay.

Seat 19 - 1:33:51

If we have 10 minutes now, come back at 11 .45.

Yep, thank you.

Seat 19 - 1:34:20

Okay, so we will resume the hearing now. Mr Harrison, would you like to start?

Seat 41 - 1:34:46

I raised at the beginning the issue we have with the way that paragraph 116 of the MPPF

was quoted in the statement of common ground at paragraph 2 .2 there, because we don't

I believe that the assessment that's been done

has taken into account all reasonable future scenarios

in terms of the housing development that's proposed,

not only on this site,

but the 150 dwelling search station road, Lechelade,

and the, I think it's 265 net,

plus a potential further 1400

for a new strategic extension to the northeast of Fairford

under the local plan update.

We don't believe that if those are a reasonable scenario, which would have, you know, the

Cotswolds for planning thing, we don't believe that's been taken into account in looking

at the wider impacts of this additional 54 houses development here on the traffic through

Fairford and that therefore the statements in paragraph 210 and 211 of the statement

of common ground with GCC, we think are very suspect and should probably be disregarded

in terms of this. Exactly how that last seven words of paragraph 116 should be applied in

this case, I think is a very important issue. Our experience, supported by the survey we

out of our neighbourhood plan is about commuting from Fairford and probably similarly from

Lechlade, about half of it goes east and south towards either Oxford direction or Swindon

and about half of it goes west towards San Rancestra and Gloucester. That adds to a certain

amount of existing commuter traffic going in both directions. We saw some of the effect

of that when we had London Street closed in the recent winter. The new A417 missing link

is due to open in 2027 and that's only likely to increase the amount of commuting from the

Lettslade area through Fairford to the west. And this isn't mitigated by the public transport

provision along the A417 to Saracen, which despite all the development we've had is still

totally inadequate for general commuting purposes.

Indeed, the latest county bus routes map published in March

by GCC doesn't even have Leche Laid marked on it.

The combined effects

of the housing, all this housing development,

which at the moment is not accompanied by any proposals

for new local employment development which might constrain

the community. It's likely to significantly increase the risk of reaching the threshold

where gridlock occurs between the three pinch points on the A417 through the centre of Fairford

which you should have the opportunity of seeing the road layout there on your way to the site,

visit. But at the narrowest point, the carriage weighs only 3 .4 metres wide because I have

measured it myself. The worm development may not cause this gridlock on its own but certainly

depending on what we assume is the new scenario here, it could make the difference between

gridlock or not and there are peak hours that we do sometimes get gridlock between those

points already. Surely this has to be considered as a significant impact on the road network,

which would be a valid reason for refusal under paragraph 116.

As we stated in our statement that has interest in party 2, this issue has not been addressed

assessed by the applicants in their traffic assessment, impact assessment, or by the assessment

done for the development at Station Road in Lechele. We believe this is a major omission

here. Moreover, the transport infrastructure contribution that is proposed in the draught

section 106 doesn't seem anything like enough to cover a modelling study which we believe

is needed to look at this to try and see if there is a viable solution to make traffic

actually work, keep traffic flows actually workable through Fairford on the 417. The

The fact that there's only I think £8 ,000 put there as a transport infrastructure contribution

doesn't seem to be anything like adequate to cover even a modelling study, let alone

a solution if it's been found. This suggests that Gloucestershire Highways haven't considered

the issue properly either. Or do they consider that the local plan housing proposals of all

these hundreds and thousands of new homes in the area are not a reasonable future scenario.

If this problem isn't addressed with a contribution from this application towards a solution,

we have to ask when is it going to be addressed and by whom?

Seat 19 - 1:40:47

Seat 22 - 1:40:54

Can I ask if the council could respond on those points?

Obviously we undertake consultation with the statutory consult for highways which is the

county council. They have come back and raised no objection to the application. That's our

position really, that the technical statutory body responsible for highway safety and capacity

The capacity of the road network has responded and raised no objection to the application.

So we can't really add anything further to that.

I'm included, there are part of the local plan process going forward.

There will be quite large strategic developments across the southern part of the district.

But highway infrastructure capacity and things will be looked at as part of those proposals

and part of that process going forward.

Seat 19 - 1:41:45

Seat 29 - 1:41:51

I will say something about the contention that we should have thought about the draught

local plan allocations.

I don't know if you have access to the PPG, planning practise guidance online.

If I could burden you with looking at that fantastically user -friendly navigable document.

If I could ask you please to look at the chapter travel plans, transport assessments and statements.

And then within that chapter, paragraph 14, which is under the heading, how should the

need for and scope of a transport assessment or statement be established?

And then there's a series of bullet points in the middle of the paragraph.

And if you look at the paragraph immediately following the bullet points,

it says it's important to give appropriate consideration to the cumulative impacts arising from other committed developments,

i .e. development that is consented or allocated where there is a reasonable degree of certainty it will proceed within the next three years.

And then in the next paragraph there's a repeat of that in relation to assessment of committed

developments.

Unsurprisingly they are treated in the same way.

So there is no obligation to look at draught local plan allocations.

That's obviously a matter that needs to be looked at and assessed in the plan making

process.

Seat 19 - 1:43:32

Mr Harrison, could I just ask, you referred to the A417 around Fairford, which particular

part or section is it that you are...

It's the section through Fairford. If you are going from here, when you get to the crossroads

by the Marlborough Arms when you've just short distance into the western end of the town.

It's from there, Milton Street, there's a bit where there's necessarily there's on -street

parking along there, which means that part of Milton Street, before you get to the bridge,

is effectively one carriage, a single carriageway.

And if there's any HTV traffic, certainly cars can't pass there.

they struggle to with large cars.

Then when you get to the bottom of the, over the bridge,

the bottom of the marketplace is where

the 3 .4 metre width constraint is.

And then straight ahead, 150 yards further along there,

there's another point just past the shops there.

And this parking by their way is definitely,

only one vehicle could pass the time contraflow.

The most common problem is when between London Street, that last one, and the bottom of the marketplace,

because of the visibility constraints around the bottom of the marketplace, vehicles are coming both ways and it can gridlock there.

Seat 41 - 1:45:14

Obviously, there comes a level, it's all right if the traffic flows are relatively low in

parts of the day, but when you get to the peak hours, evening particularly, I've seen

that frequently, grid lots along there.

But you'll see the road layout if you go to the vet's lake, that route, the site visit.

Thank you.

Seat 19 - 1:45:43

So in terms of the section 106,

I've got the latest version of the district council 106.

And I wanted to understand

what the council's latest position is on that.

Seat 22 - 1:46:05

I understand the legal section sent the draught document through yesterday I believe or the

Abpallant did on behalf. So our legal section agreed to that so everything in there now

is acceptable to us. I'm not aware there's any outstanding issues from any legal side.

It covers the relevant contributions that have been requested on the affordable housing

and self -build mix. There's also an element relating to public open space going forward

as well. So they're the terms and conditions that we normally put into Section 106 is for

developments of this nature. So hopefully the civil compliance statement also clarified

where we were in terms of justification for the things within it. So I don't have anything

further unless you've got a specific comment on any elements of it.

Seat 19 - 1:46:59

In relation to the BNG habitat creation, Schedule 3, Part 1, Clause 1 .1c says to carry out and

complete the habitat creation and enhancement works on the offsite BNG land prior to first

occupation of the 27th dwelling.

And I just wonder why it was the 27th dwelling.

Seat 30 - 1:47:27

If I may, we have the Appellant Solicitor here. There are some points around the triggers

and the drafting. Do you want to take the time?

Oliver Martin.

Seat 52 - 1:47:49

My name is Oliver Martin, I'm from Bickley Martin, Planning Law, and I'm the Appellant's

Section 106 planning solicitor.

Could I just clarify where you're from?

Bickley Martin.

Yeah.

And you're a planning solicitor?

Correct, acting for the Appellant.

Yeah.

So in relation to your question on the trigger for the off -site delivery of the off -site BNG

in paragraph 1 .1c

it's the 27th dwelling which is 50 % of the units and that was felt to be a

appropriate and reasonable trigger for delivery of that off -site BNG

Seat 19 - 1:48:42

The medical contribution is in the...

Seat 23 - 1:49:00

Yeah to follow up from the email I sent through, we didn't receive a response from the NHS

during the course of the planning application. They had responded to one of the previous

ones, but we consulted them on the application but they didn't respond to this one. They

came back to us with the letter that I forwarded to you in September with that contribution

request and then they held discussions with the appellant about the amount and the appellant

has agreed and requested that be put in section 106 and agreed to pay it. So it's not something

that we have insisted on but having looked at it we are satisfied it meets the relevant

test in terms of providing the infrastructure necessary to accommodate the additional population.

So in terms of the CILP compliance we are happy with it but clearly it wasn't something

that was requested during the course of the planning application. So I will have to leave

that for you whether you think it is acceptable in that respect.

Seat 19 - 1:49:47

Just a very minor point. The appeal reference is just the number and it is an APP slash

Does the Council consider that the section 106 resolves the reason for refusal 6?

Remind me what refusal 6 was.

Focusing on the...

We have four?

Yes, section...

Yeah, that's fine.

The biodiversity officers are all happy with the BNG input or content of the section 106

Seat 22 - 1:50:38

regarding monitoring and fees and the rest of it. So that is, we are satisfied with that

as it stands at the moment.

And so reasons for refusal four and five are also resolved?

Yes.

Thank you.

Seat 19 - 1:50:53

And does the 106 as currently drafted alter the council's planning balance of the proposal?

No.

No?

No, in terms of, I mean it secures the delivery of affordable housing but we've addressed that already in the officer report.

we took that into account that that would carry significant weight anyway in the original

planning balance if that was delivered. So we still consider the harm to the listed buildings

and the landscape outweigh the provision benefits arising from the affordable housing and the housing.

And how long would you need to complete the obligations?

I'd hope that we will manage to get them all signed and completed within a week

but bearing in mind the landowner is New College Oxford and sometimes from

experience signatories there can take a little bit of time it would be helpful

to have two weeks in this case.

Any other comments on the section 106?

Seat 42 - 1:52:37

I haven't seen it.

So I don't know what to say.

We asked for some sort of playground to be incorporated or an offsite contribution.

I haven't heard what that would be.

We also asked for an upgrade of the access along the 417, which is not really a proper access.

It needs upgrading.

So those are the two things we asked for as a town council.

Seat 19 - 1:53:09

I don't know whether anybody can tell me if these have been included or not.

Would you like to see a copy of the 106?

Can that be arranged?

Seat 23 - 1:53:19

Yes, that's fine.

Just to clarify, public open space is included in the section 106, the CDC one.

There's also a condition, a draught condition covering the provision of a play area within

the development.

So hopefully that goes some way of addressing those and applicants is undertaking highway

improvement works to the access as well I believe. We've not had any requests for anything

Seat 19 - 1:53:43

further. But I can find a copy of the job.

We can provide you with a copy of both of those and if you'd like to have some time

to look at those and come back with any comments. But perhaps you could summarise what's in

there for the benefit of Mr Trotter.

Seat 30 - 1:54:01

In terms specifically to the access, it is a 278 works that comprises the widening of

the shared route along up to the Wern.

It is not in the section 106, it is actually a condition which I am sure we will get to.

is we undertook a audit of walking routes into Lechelade

and there is some proposed improvements

to some of the shared paths and providing

where Moorgate is, some tactile crossing, paving.

That is not sitting within 106,

that's agreed with the highway authority and the district.

It's by condition.

There are no required upgrades to any junction improvements, so there is financial contributions

towards improvements for bus infrastructure.

And that is identified explicitly between the development and the bus stops on Moorgate,

just to the left of Moorgate.

There is also a contribution of £15 ,000 towards a traffic regulation order and that is to

extend the 30mph speed limit extension to the west of the Wern, so it starts west of

the roundabout.

They are the kind of transport highway improvement works and package of contributions that are

relating to active travel, sustainable travel and speed reduction.

Do you want me to pick up the other elements that sit in the 106?

I am happy to.

The educational authority responded that there was sufficient school capacity for the people

generation by the development.

We have been asked to provide a contribution of £22 ,800 towards home to school transport

for 11 to 16 -year -olds.

That is to be paid on or just prior to first occupation.

The purpose of that is to facilitate trips to schools beyond the three miles of walking

distance.

There is one further county contribution which is the libraries contribution.

That is £10 ,500.

Again, to be paid prior to first occupation on or prior to first occupation.

That is specifically to go to improving customer access within the Lechelade library, either

through improvements to stock or IT or digital technology and services at the Lechelade library.

They comprise the district contributions.

We had a bit of discussion between the parties around the appropriate way to capture open

space delivery.

We suggested initially a contribution but it was understood that there was not a project

that could necessarily be identified.

So the agreement was direct provision on site.

So there is a play area that will be provided within the open

space within the site and in the scheme.

The other, we've talked about the primary healthcare

contribution of 63 ,000 pounds.

Again, that is directly towards additional clinical capacity at

Letchlade Medical Centre.

There are then the usual provisions around biodiversity,

gain monitoring contributions, a monitoring fee.

Offsite BNG that is dealt with through section 106 drafting

we just discussed the onsite BNG

is dealt with through conditions.

And then of course we have the schedules

that deal with affordable housing.

not less than 40 % to be provided as affordable housing with a tenure mix that's set out.

And there's detailed provisions relating to occupation restrictions and the local connexion point which aligns with the neighbourhood plan policy.

I think probably the final element is the self -build custom build and that

relates to policy H1 of the local plan and that is for 5 % of the total number

of general open market houses to be provided as custom and self -build plots

and there are various provisions within that that relate to approval of marketing schemes and so on.

Seat 42 - 1:59:55

The only comment I'd like to make is that if play areas provide on site, we don't have a the Town Council any budget to manage or maintain it.

So it would have to be funded through a service charge or by the developer.

Seat 30 - 2:00:20

I should also add that we have a sill, of course, that will be paid to the parish.

And that would be 25 % of the sill receipts will go to the parish as it has a neighbourhood plan in place. Thank you.

Seat 52 - 2:00:38

Inspector, can I just add on that point, read the play area?

The section 106 agreement provides for it to be taken by a management company or the

parish council.

So, if it was going to go to the parish council, then the funding would need to be there to

do it.

Otherwise, it would be the management company.

Seat 19 - 2:01:02

Would you like some time to look over the details of that?

Yes, please.

Have we provided?

You've got those now.

Maybe we can have an adjournment.

I'm happy to do it while you continue.

Okay.

All right.

Seat 19 - 2:01:26

So I don't have any more questions on the 106.

Does anyone else want to raise anything before we move on?

Seat 52 - 2:01:39

Inspector, could I just make two points?

Firstly, on the version of the District Council 106 you've got, just to flag up, there are

a couple of cross references which have gone awry.

it's it's the auto numbering on the document those will be sorted before the

document is engrossed and the second point is just to mention to be

absolutely clear that the county matters are dealt with in a separate section 106

agreement because that's the way that Gloucestershire like to do things

Seat 19 - 2:02:12

Moving on to other matters. Referring to the council's current five -year housing non -supply

of 1 .8 years, can the council advise how many houses that shortfall equates to?

Seat 23 - 2:02:34

The amount we need to deliver per year is set out in the statement as 1035. So that's

what we need to deliver over the remaining period of the local plan which would have

gone up to 2031. But the new local plan which would go to 2043 has to deliver 18 ,600 so

that would be about 1056 per year I believe. So that's the kind of figure we're looking

out per annum in terms of delivery going forward.

So can you go for the short one?

No, I'd like to speak for plans. The current local plan period, prior to the changes to

the MPPF in December 2014, we had to deliver 8 ,400 over the local plan period and we were

delivering about 10 ,600. So at the moment the five year supply is 1 .8 years so that's

kind of where we are, the information I have. I haven't got an actual figure number for

how many short we are because I don't know what we need. I can tell you what we need

to deliver up to 2043. I couldn't tell you what we need to deliver up to 2031 other than

I'm telling you it's another 1 ,035 per year for the remaining, another 5 ,000 for the remaining

of the local plan period.

I could go and try and find a planning policy officer if you want, give you that advice.

Seat 19 - 2:03:59

It would be helpful to know.

Please.

Seat 30 - 2:04:15

Did you want to specifically hear from the Council on this?

We can pick up what we understand the shortfall to be over five years as set out in the housing

land supply statement.

Yeah, actually it was June 2025.

Seat 19 - 2:04:35

It is the 647 Holmes.

Seat 24 - 2:05:12

Just to let you know, access has been arranged to Butler's Court for Dr Mealy, which is where

he's gone now.

and then it's available for you later if you want.

So I got hold of the...

Seat 23 - 2:06:46

Seat 19 - 2:06:52

Hello, it is Matthew Britton from Planning Policy. Maybe I will provide a bit more detail for you.

Sorry, could I just cheque your name please?

Yeah, it is Matthew Britton, B -I -T -O -N. I am the Strategic Planning Policy Manager.

Strategic Planning Manager.

Planning Policy Manager.

Yeah.

Seat 19 - 2:07:12

I just asked, referring to the council's five -year

housing land supply of 1 .8 years,

can you advise how many houses the shortfall comprises?

Seat 23 - 2:07:27

I don't know the number off the top of my head,

but I can find that out for you, yes.

Is that okay if I sort of go away and work that out for you?

Yeah, that's fine.

Seat 29 - 2:07:40

Inspector, can I help?

Because it's in the material in front of you already, with a bit of simple maths.

Could I ask you to turn up CD 5 .6, which is the housing land supply statement?

Okay.

And then could I ask you to go to page, PDF page 13, I think, and then I'll ask you to

of 41 where you should hopefully find table 8 which is the housing land supply

calculation using standard method figure. And if you look in row D the total

housing requirement including the buffer is 5439. Row I total supply is 1946.

please cheque my maths because it always needs checking but if you take the

supply away from the requirement we make it three four nine three that's the

Seat 19 - 2:09:14

Seat 23 - 2:09:15

shortfall just just sound looking at the same table that is the correct table to

use and that's the crap the correct figures I haven't done that calculation

but that does it like the great table.

Seat 19 - 2:09:36

And in relation to self and custom built housing can the council advise of their current status in relation to their statutory duty to give suitable

Seat 23 - 2:09:49

permissions to enough service plots?

Yes, we are in excess of

the amount required in terms of meeting the three -year period for people who

joined the register. I can't give you a figure off the top of my head because I

can find out for you if you like from the latest figures if you need. Yes, yeah.

Largely, I mean we're getting a lot more now because a lot of people for BNG are

going down the self -build route to get an exemption from BNG so there's a lot

all coming through with self -build but it was I think 70 or 80 or so I think in

excess we've got quite we've done quite well in terms of the self -build region.

Seat 19 - 2:10:30

Seat 30 - 2:10:36

Any comments in response? We did ask of the council what the current

figures were and we didn't receive a response so it's drafted as a provision.

I think recently something has been added to the website. It was something that was

a bit opaque previously to get hold of. So it is on the website but I can find a copy

for everyone if you like.

Seat 19 - 2:11:06

So I note that there's no outstanding objections from the Environment Agency and the Lead Local

Flood Authority, subject to various conditions being imposed.

However, local objections have been raised about regular flooding on the land in the

vicinity of the appeal site, with reference to it being as much as three to four times

per year.

The initial LLFA response said that several public comments report that the worm was flooded

in recent storms in November 2024, and the comments by Hinchcliffe from December 2024

include photos of the flooding.

From the information available to the LLFA, the recent storm was more like a one in six

or one in ten year rainfall event.

So the photo showing this flooding don't reflect the risk of flooding from surface water map.

Given this disparity in the proximity of the flooding to the site, further analysis of

the risk of flooding to the site should be carried out to make sure the proposed houses

will not be put at undue risk and the development will not have unforeseen impacts on flood

risk elsewhere.

The appellant subsequently carried out further modelling. The Brookbank flooding study, technical

note 5, shows surface water flood modelling for the 1 in 100 year events plus climate

change but found that the extent of flooding didn't match the photographs of flooding at

the Wern junction. Technical note 5 went on to look at highway drainage and found that

there was a blocked outfall and that this would lead to the highway gullies to over

off and fill the road from any extreme storm event. So this blockage was found to explain

the flooding at the Wern junction. I just wanted clarity on whether that assessment

accounts for surface water flooding that the LLFA referred to as one in six or one in ten

rainfall event. I don't know if that's clear.

Seat 30 - 2:13:26

In our court documents we have submitted the

Flood Study and then the Flood Technical Study and then the Flood Study note and they are

CD1 .3 .7, CD1 .3 .8 and they set out the contents and the findings of the model and what was

considered.

Would you allow me to just take a moment to go through that and come back to you with

that response?

I think the information will be here.

But just a moment.

Seat 30 - 2:14:28

Six Mercury members was the most successful a

Probably CD4 .7 which is a statement that was prepared to support the hearing and actually

responding expressly to those comments received from residents.

And at paragraph 3 .3 .5 it says the contents and findings of the model are discussed in

in TNO4 and cover the following storm events. One in 30 year, one in 100 year, one in 30

year plus 35 % climate change, one in 100 year plus 40 % climate change, one in 1000 year.

So therefore the scenarios that were put forward by the interesting parties are considered

to be covered by that modelling event.

Seat 19 - 2:15:51

What I am wondering is how much of the flooding is caused by the blockage as opposed to the

rainfall events?

Seat 30 - 2:16:02

The figure 4 .2 in the flood study, that is 1 .3 .7, shows the fluvial network, the full

catchment, it includes the structures that have been modelled, a range of blocked partial

blocked scenarios were run. It demonstrated that some surface water flooding was caused

because of the blocked and the silted drain headwall and that is why we have the culvert

condition also and the management regime. That prevents the transfer of water from the

to the east.

And on reviewing that information,

the LLFA confirmed that the modelling as presented

was that if the system, the gullies and the headwall,

remain clear and working, then even in a 1 in 100

event plus climate change, the access to the site

and the development remains clear of flooding.

And that is what the framework, the PPG requires us to demonstrate.

subject.

As I actually lived there, the last few years have been subject to considerable flooding

in that area and all the water flows down from the north.

You can do all the desk modelling and computer modelling you like, but the fact is that we've

wading in a foot or two of water every two or three years, so one in 100 years is way

beyond my knowledge. All I know is that over the last few years, it has been considerable

flooding and all the water flows in the north, it all gathers in Downington and the Wurundabat.

And it is considerable impact on the people in Downington who now cannot get any flood

insurance and so they are uninsured plus of the regularity of the flooding to the

south and all the water flows to the north. I know I've waded through the water, not a

computer. Thank you. Do you have any comments? Yes, sorry, I can't really add anything further.

We've engaged with the lead local thought authority, they're the strategy

Council T. We did receive, or I did receive during the course of the application, lots

of photographs of the flooding which I forwarded to the LLFA so they were aware of that in

their responses and that's why they asked for the additional information which the applicant

did and as mentioned, a lot of it seems to come down to some of the blockage from those

photographs that does appear to have been through lack of maintenance in some of the

deciphen to the east which is about 600 millimetres and the culvert to the west and the blocking

up there so it does seem to be that it's more to do with clearing out things and

management does cause some of the latest events rather than anything else but I

can only go on what the LFA have advised us, they've looked at the technical detail

and they've been made aware of the comments and photographs of the local

residents and come to the conclusion they have so I can't comment any further

than that really. All I would say is I understand the points I think having

Having done the additional modelling and the observed photos and the surface water model,

they correlate, they match and therefore that builds quite a consistent picture about the

extent of flooding and in running scenarios where that drainage infrastructure that is

in places unblocked, there is no flood risk to the road, to the access to the development.

Seat 19 - 2:20:27

The TM5 recommends maintenance of drainage in the immediate vicinity, including cleaning

of the proposed swale and eastern and western culverts to the wider network. It's also recommended

that the highway drainage and the headwall are jetted clean and cleared to re -establish

connexions from the highway drainage back into the surrounding ditch system. Can you

confirm if that recommended maintenance is within the appellant's control? How would future

maintenance of those drainage features be secured?

So the condition 13 relates to a SUDs management and maintenance plan.

So the main sort of network, drainage network, drainage run that's between the two culverts

to the north of the Wurn is sitting within the red line.

so maintenance of those culverts will naturally fall within and be secured by that condition.

Condition 14 relates to specifically the culvert that is north of the roundabout junction and

north of the work and into the site.

That was a condition that was expressly required by the Environment Agency because they wanted

to ensure that development would not risk any conveyance of water from the flood alleviation

structures that sit to the west towards the east.

So condition 13 is the quite standard LLFA condition that will apply to the full SUDs network,

the drainage, the conveyance structures and the outfall.

And condition 14 will relate expressly to the culvert.

Thank you.

Seat 30 - 2:23:03

Reference to the headwall being jettied clean and cleared, is that within your control?

The culvert is within the adopted highway. So it will be the highway that will be responsible

for maintaining that specific element. It is either adopted highway or it is going to

be within the developer's control through the maintenance of the surface water drainage.

Seat 19 - 2:23:48

Is the council content on that basis that the scheme will not exacerbate surface water

flooding?

Seat 23 - 2:24:02

We are not raising an objection on the basis of the information and conditions then no

not raise an objection on those matters.

Seat 19 - 2:24:13

I don't have any further questions on that.

Does anyone else have any comments?

Seat 19 - 2:24:26

We'll move on then to the benefits of the scheme.

planning balance. Madam I don't want to address the particular benefits because they're in

Seat 29 - 2:24:42

the evidence in front of you, you've got that, you've seen what we say about that. I just

want to make three points about the way that the council have approached the planning balance

because in my submission it's a defective approach and I've got three points to make.

The first point is about the weight to be afforded to local plan policy DS4, which is

the policy that imposes a restrictive approach to development outside settlement boundaries.

The council accept that's an out -of -date policy because they don't have a five -year supply,

but they don't tell us in their statement of case anywhere that I can see how much weight

should be afforded to that policy and that's obviously a material matter when

it comes to decision -making in my submission. You've seen Ms. Palmerters

approaches to attribute a very limited weight to that policy because of the

lack of supply, the highly constrained nature of the district. We say there's no

hope of the council achieving a supply without using greenfield sites outside

settlement boundaries and it appears that a new local plan to secure a plan

led growth is still some way off so we would we would like to know what the

council's position is in relation to how much weight should be attributed to DS4

that's the first point the second point is that because they're on the council's

case there needs to be a heritage balance carried out under paragraph 215

of the framework. The council statement of case doesn't do that properly because

in paragraph 9 .14 all it does is weigh one benefit against the heritage harm so

it's incomplete because as you know we have to weigh the public benefits which

is everything and the council don't do that and similarly in 9 .13 and 9 .14 the

Council don't clearly articulate why the harm that they claim to the designated heritage

assets outweighs the public benefits. So we would say there's no clear basis for saying

there's a strong reason for refusing consent under paragraph 11D1.

So that brings me to the third point, which is about the tilted balance. If you agree

with us and paragraph 11D1 doesn't stand in the way of permission, we get into the tilted

balanced territory. The council statement of case doesn't do a comprehensive planning

balance. It's rather odd because it talks about heritage harm in paragraph 12 .1, but

then when it's doing the overall planning balance it only seems to talk about landscape

and visual. Now I shouldn't really be pointing out that the council have made an error in

my favour, but they have. But the wider point is that you don't have a comprehensive overall

planning balance from the council. And in the light of what you've just heard a few

moments ago, in my submission, it's difficult for the council to form a reliable overall

planning balance if they don't know matters as basic as how many houses short they are

against a five -year supply, because that's a pretty key indication in my submission of

how much weight you should be attributing

to the absence of the supply

and the benefits of my client's scheme.

So for those three reasons,

we say that the council hasn't done

either of the planning balances that are required

in an appropriate way.

I won't say any more about the way we've done it.

You've seen it, we commend that to you.

You can perform a judgement

as to whether you agree with us or not, madam,

but that's Inspector Soi.

That's what I wanted to say, thank you.

Seat 19 - 2:28:34

So could I ask the council then what weight you apply to DS4?

DS4 essentially says it is an in principle objection to new build open market housing outside development boundaries or non -principal settlements.

As such, we do not have a land supply at the current moment in time. That policy is out of date.

as mentioned we've then got to decide doesn't mean it doesn't carry any weight but then

we have to make an assessment in terms of how much weight we do give it given it's an

in principle objection it's very therefore difficult to say when you don't have a land

supply that you can give an in principle objection to housing in ds4 locations so

i think it's going to carry kind of next to no way to be honest in its current form because

it has an in principle objection which paragraph 11 doesn't have. So you then have to go to

the planning balance, there is D1 where you balance or look at the impact on protected

assets and areas like A and B's list of buildings, conservation areas and if there is no strong

grounds to refuse it on those grounds then potentially you can look at the tilted balance

under D2. So, and I think that's what I was getting to in the statement is that in this

instance we think there are strong grounds to refuse the application under D1 because

there is a conflict with the relevant paragraphs in the MPPF and also Section 61 and the legislation

Seat 23 - 2:30:07

giving considerable importance and weight to listed buildings and their setting. So

that carries substantial weight and that in itself would be sufficient to refuse the application.

If you consider that there wasn't a list of building then you could look at D2 and the

landscape impact would then be part of the planning balance as part of that. In that

instance we also consider that harm arising from the landscape impact would significantly

and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the housing and the affordable housing. So,

yes, I think we have set out clearly why we consider the conflict with the listed building

and heritage assets and conservation area. We have weighed that against the public benefits

arising from the affordable housing and the housing. Just because we haven't come up with

specific number for how short we are. We recognise that the current land supply is 1 .8 and therefore

significantly below the five years. We've also specified that we need to deliver 1 ,035

houses per year going forward. That's how we've always done it. I've never been asked

the question how many houses have we short before. That's why I was a bit stuttery earlier

on about it because it's never come up as a question I've been asked before because

we've always just looked on the basis of where we are in terms of 1 .8 years and therefore

we acknowledge we are short, we will have to address that as part of the applications

that come in at the moment, which we think we have done reasonably, but for the reasons

we have set out this morning, we think there are strong grounds to refuse the application

on harm to heritage assets, protected assets identified in paragraph 11 D1, and that in

Seat 19 - 2:31:39

itself provides a strong ground to refuse the application in this instance. So hopefully

that provides a bit more clarification.

Seat 23 - 2:31:45

I think quite catch what you said in terms of the weight. Did you say next to no weight?

I think because it's covered it says an in principle it gives an in principle

objection it said no open market housing in those locations and I don't think we

can cannot it's not like given we don't have a land supply it's not possible to

say anymore you have an in principle objection in a DS for location because

you have to you have to go to 11 D 1 and that doesn't say by any principle

objection. So in terms of its consistency with the MPPF, that carries GS4 at the current

time, carries little, no weight.

Seat 19 - 2:32:26

the

Seat 30 - 2:32:35

Anything to respond on that from the appellant side and

You have our

written submissions on the on the range of benefits I think that the council

have identified homes of affordable homes I don't think they see any further

benefits I think we heard that signing of the of the 106 and the contributions

that sit with those and the benefits that that are provided through that

doesn't change the planning balance.

So I won't set out all the benefits,

but I do just want to contextualise,

because it's really important,

the weight to be attributed to the provision

of affordable homes,

because of the housing land supply,

But also because the framework requires us to do that at 11D2, having particular regard

to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations.

This is a principal settlement.

There are only five principal settlements that are not within national landscape.

making effective use of land, we've discussed density point, securing well -designed places.

We have no conflict with the EN2, the design policy.

And then lastly, providing affordable homes individually or in combination.

and if I may, I just wanted to ask Mr Roberts to just set out why nothing less than substantial

Seat 31 - 2:34:41

weight must be given to the provision of 22 affordable homes in this context. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Inspector, and thank you once again. I think it might be helpful if I provide

a brief five -point crazy of my affordable housing statement. It's a 90 -page document.

It's rather extensive. And I'd like to alight on the key points that explain why the situation

in Cotswold is so critical and why the benefit of the proposed affordable housing has to

considered and appreciated in that context. I'd start by noting the statement of common

ground notes that the weight to be attributed to the affordable housing appears to be a

matter of dispute. I struggled from the information in front of us to understand how the LPA gets

to its position. But what we have for the appellant here is an extensive review of the

situation that as far as I'm aware is unchallenged. And of course we've heard a lot about the alleged harms and we've heard from

third -party objectors, but we hear very little about the benefits of

development

in hearings and like I say we have a uniquely challenging situation in Cotswold.

I'll start off by just outlining the housing need.

That's encapsulated most recently in the local housing needs assessment in 2020 that identified

a need of 125 affordable dwellings every year for 20 years from 2021 onwards.

It's all set out in section 7 of my statement.

I have to observe that 125 figure has to be treated as a minimum.

It's calculated against very stringent assumptions in terms of things like affordability, the

amount of time taken to meet needs.

And I simply suggest that that 125 figure has to be treated as an absolute minimum.

Moreover, it is now 2026 and the council, as far as I'm aware, doesn't have an up -to -date

understanding of housing need. My second point is in terms of housing delivery

with reference to that need. My section 8 includes a series of tables which show delivery

over the local plan period. And they show that trajectory of delivery.

and my figure 8 .1, and that is at page 57 for your node inspector, shows that we saw

something of a peak in delivery around about 2016 through to 2018, but in the six years

since then delivery has been in broad decline.

The result of this, when we look at that 125 figure, that constrained figure, my paragraph

8 .5 shows that we already have a shortfall in just three years of 96 affordable dwellings.

Now we did hear a few moments ago there's an overall shortfall of over 3 ,400 homes across

the board so you might ask well is 96 dwellings, is that small beer? And I'd simply say no

because that 125 figure is constrained and there are an array of other statistics that

exhibit the scale of a housing crisis here in Cotswold. I'd also note that in

Letchlade itself there have been just 18 affordable homes completed over the

local plan period. That's a really very small amount, just 15 % of overall

completions in Letchlade. We know that 123 households have expressed a

preference on the housing register for lecture laid.

So that just shows you the gulf between the number of households seeking a home here and

what delivery is actually looking like.

My third point, Inspector, relates to the future supply of affordable housing.

We can see that delivery has tailed off in the last six years.

Now, is there any realistic prospect of that shortfall ever being recovered, certainly

without a local plan in place that could deal with that?

And the answer is I find in my section 9 is, well, unfortunately not.

Based upon my own review of the council's housing trajectory, the council could expect

to deliver around 99 affordable dwellings per annum over the next five years.

Clearly not enough to meet that minimum 125 figure and I calculate that existing shortfall of 96 dwellings will expand to 246 dwellings at the end of the five -year period.

But bluntly the council will be almost two years down on that need figure by the end of 2029.

A run through of the affordability indicators very briefly because these really do exhibit

how serious the situation is.

We know that in Cotswold the median house cost 13 .84 times median earnings.

That is a huge ratio.

It is one of the worst in the Southwest.

If you think you can go into your bank, obtain a mortgage typically on four and a half times

earnings, 13 .84 is widely in excess of that and shows you just how difficult it will be

to access a home without inherited wealth or help from a bank of mum and dad.

We know that there are 1729 households on the housing register, again very high figure for

a real authority, and we know that waiting times for successful applicants are at the best one year

in seven months for a one bedroom home. That rises over two years for three bedroom and

four bedroom homes. So clearly a very long time for anybody to be dealing with the effects

of overcrowded, inadequate, expensive accommodation. So where does this all get us to? It gets

us to a conclusion on weight. And like I say, I'm not aware of the process that leads the

Council to its position. There's very little discussion in any of the officers report.

The committee minutes are frankly very comprehensive but they don't record any discussion of housing

need. It seems to be there's a posture of well move along now, nothing to see here.

The lack of engagement is quite obvious to my mind and by contrast we have extensive

evidence in my statement that there is a housing crisis in Cotswold. There is an opportunity

Inspector to grant planning permission for up to 22 affordable homes which will meet the needs of

real people in housing need, otherwise not represented at this inquiry. And so Inspector

I commend the finding that the affordable housing should carry substantial weight in your decision.

Seat 19 - 2:42:41

I hope that's helpful inspector, but happy to answer any questions. Thank you

Thank you, I don't have any specific questions on that with the council like to respond

Seat 23 - 2:42:50

I find the applicants or the speakers comments about us almost as if we obstructed or deliberately trying to

Delay or prevent affordable housing going forward. We do everything we possibly can to secure affordable housing

we have policies in place which require 40 % affordable housing. This scheme would meet

the minimum requirement. It's not provided in an excessive amount or an amount above

the policy compliance amount. We as an authority, we don't build houses. We rely on developers

to come forward. The nature of the district means we get a lot of developments which are

small to scale and don't include affordable housing. So when we do get schemes that come

forward we always support them as far as we possibly can. We've acknowledged in

this case that significant weight should be given to the delivery of affordable

housing that was set out in the report. There wasn't any need particularly to go

into any more detail about that. At the end of the day it's delivering a policy

compliant level of affordable housing. It carries significant weight but for the

reasons we set out elsewhere the substantial harm to the heritage assets

is considered to outweigh that and therefore as we set out it

It's a planning balance matter and ultimately that would be for you.

I mean we're going to reach different conclusions, the balance and ourselves on the matter.

But we consider the substantial weight that has to be given to the heritage assets.

In this instance it outweighs the benefits arising from the affordable housing.

Seat 31 - 2:44:23

If I may just come back with three brief points of response.

and respectfully I wouldn't agree that my comments there were alluding to the Council being obstructive in any way.

It's just that there seems to be an absence of any consideration beyond quite a perfunctory few lines in any of the officer's report,

the committee minutes or the statement of case.

I suggest that in order to have that proper appreciation of the benefits when you are

weighing in the planning balance, the analysis contained in the statement leads us far more

rigorously to that finding of substantial weight.

The second point and my last point is just on the suggestion that the 40 % is no more than a minimum requirement.

All affordable housing policies exist to generate a benefit.

I refer to a decision in section 12 of my statement at Langton Road Norton, which explains, and the inspectors' words there were very pithy.

and I've never found them better expressed elsewhere, but affordable housing policies

are designed to produce a benefit, they're not there to ward off a harm, and so the delivery

of 40 % affordable is clearly clearly beneficial here. Thank you.

Seat 29 - 2:46:00

Can I raise a separate point please, because Mr. Perks has twice now said that the council

is concerned about the substantial harm to heritage assets. I thought we were agreed

that this was a less than substantial harm case. If it's a slip of the tongue, fine,

but I just need to make sure that the council's position isn't changing during the hearing.

Seat 23 - 2:46:24

No, it's substantial weight is what I'm talking about.

Seat 19 - 2:46:37

Is anyone having anything further to add on those points?

I think now is probably a good time to break for lunch

and then we can come back and go through the conditions afterwards.

Is half an hour enough or people like 45 minutes?

So we'll reconvene at 1 .45.

Thank you.

Seat 19 - 2:48:48

It is 1 .45.

We will restart the hearing.

I have been given a copy of Mr Harrison's speech.

Does anyone else want a copy?

As I mentioned at the start,

we need to have a discussion about what is going on in the

what conditions might be appropriate were I to allow the appeal. This is just standard

procedure and it's not an indication that I've made up my mind on the appeal.

So turning to the list of conditions provided to me. Condition 1 suggests an alternative

to the second paragraph to be more precise about the reserve matters.

Seat 19 - 2:51:23

So on condition one, I just wanted it to refer to details of the access, excluding access,

excluding the access junction from the worm appearance, landscape, layout and scale being

the reserve matters. Condition 3, I think it needs to take out broad accordance with

the following approved drawings if we take out reference to the parameter plan for that

condition and then have a separate condition saying any reserve matters application shall

be submitted in a general conformity with the parameter plan in the reference.

Condition 5 on contamination site investigation suggests adding if during the course of the

development, any contamination is found which has not been previously identified, work shall

be suspended until additional measures or the remediation of the site have been carried

out in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved

in writing and a verification report for all the remediation works has been submitted to

in a pre -dimmed writing.

Is that OK?

Everyone?

Condition 7 on tree protection.

Do you consider if there is any duplication with condition 9?

Yeah, I think we're all together.

Seat 30 - 2:54:10

Yeah, the temporary protective fencing is

that's taken from condition 7 is picked up isn't it 9 .g the construction

inclusion zone exclusion zone

It's effectively getting to the same points of protection that condition 9, I think probably

condition 9 is the more standard wording.

If you were to think that they were duplication in full then I think

probably

9 is probably the more complete.

construction exclusion say yeah I think we'd say you could take seven out

Seat 19 - 2:55:31

condition 10 on landscaping

I wondered if it overlaps with the 106 requirements.

Seat 23 - 2:56:00

We get detailed landscaping as part of reserve matters anyway.

So I don't know whether there's a say for landscape and scheme condition at this stage.

I don't think it's inconsistency, it might be duplication, but I suppose it's the planting

season that I don't think is in the 106.

So probably is the more relevant part of the condition.

Seat 30 - 2:56:38

But I think that the species, the planting spec, the maintenance schedule is all required by the 106.

Seat 34 - 2:56:45

I was only going to, I've not seen the 106 but the only thing I was going to mention

about this is it refers to replacement planting within five years which is a normal standard

part of a landscape reserve matters condition.

I'd also add that the 106 is specifically dealing with all open space areas whereas

this is full landscaping for the whole site and immediately I can't necessarily

think of where that difference might lie but it could it could be a difference.

Yeah, sorry, my experience condition 10 is a very standard landscape condition and

be better to be included rather rely on condition 1 which just says landscaping.

but you're touched and you've talked a lot.

I suppose the triggers are slightly different. Condition 12 is no development to commence.

any development. 13 is development that is the occupation so I suppose it allows

some reasonable amount of time to consider the scheme, approve it, agree,

agree arrangements and then those are in place and approved before the

Effectively the first house is occupied so it would change the triggers. I'm not saying that is an

issue, but I suppose they're the two distinctions between those conditions

the previous development called Moorgate nearby. It was also a such system and it was never

and undertaken how it was going to be maintained and financed.

All the SUDs system has silted up and is no longer useful as a SUD system

Seat 42 - 2:59:59

because there's no need to maintain, which exasperated the flooding in the area.

It's very important that not only there should be a maintenance plan,

as how it's going to be financed.

Seat 52 - 3:00:13

Inspector, there is a part of the 106 where SUDs are part of the open space and so therefore

fall within that area and therefore their financing would fall within the financial

arrangements of the management company.

Seat 19 - 3:00:46

and layout details. Do you think there should be pre -commencement?

Thank you very much.

Seat 30 - 3:01:27

The reserve matters application must include details of the proposed internal layout.

Those elements need to be included with reserve matters in the usual way.

In fact, there is no punctuation there, but that seems to be a second sentence.

no dwelling shall be occupied until it is provided with a connexion to a

highway maintainable at public expense so that's the adopted part which bit is

it that you're suggesting should be a prior to commit I don't know how that

might work to a beer prior to commencement I think I think it we just

need some punctuation. Yeah. Is that does that help? Okay.

Seat 29 - 3:02:25

There's also another problem with the condition, which is

that it's sort of low on two levels. The first the first

point is there's there can't be a planning justification for

requiring every house to be connected to a highway, because

you can obviously have private ways. That's the first point.

The second point is perhaps a more fundamental one. You can't

It is a catch 22 impossible to comply with situation to require a connexion to a highway

that is maintainable at the public expense that has been constructed to at least base

course level.

If it has only been constructed to base course level it won't have been adopted by then.

That is just impossible.

I cannot leave you to think about that one.

It needs, obviously the houses need to be connected to a physical route that is suitable

for them to use to get in and out of the house before it is occupied.

But you can't require it to be a publicly maintainable one because if it is only at

base course level it won't be adopted.

Seat 52 - 3:03:30

Can I just add on that point?

It might be solvable with a reference to intended to be highway maintainable.

Seat 23 - 3:03:43

Sorry, I don't think it's requiring every house to be, it's just with a connexion to a highway.

So it could be the highway maintainable public space is the adopted road.

It's just the house then has to have a connexion to that, which could be base course level.

So it's not saying the highway maintainable public space and base course level, it's requiring

a connexion to that adopted highway and therefore that connexion could be 50 yards long as

long as that's done in a base course level.

I think that's what it's trying to get at.

Seat 19 - 3:04:39

Is there some clearer wording that you could suggest?

Seat 30 - 3:05:01

The intention of the condition is to make sure that on occupation there is at least

a base course road that connects back to an adoptable highway.

No dwelling shall be occupied until it is provided with a connexion constructed to

at least base course level to a highway maintainable at public expense.

So I think if the connexion and the base course level sit together then it is clear

that that relates to the standard of road for the bit that's unadopted.

Okay, thank you.

Seat 19 - 3:06:05

So condition 18, timetable for unadopted roads and footpaths. Prior to the first occupation

of the development hereby permitted, a timetable for the completion of unadopted roads and

footpaths, including details relating to their future maintenance and management, shall be

submitted to and approved in writing. The development shall be undertaken in accordance

with deproved details and maintained in accordance with those. I think it needs something to

tie that to first occupation. So the provision of unadopted roads and footpaths is provided

prior to first occupation?

Seat 30 - 3:07:10

The first occupation is where you receive the timetable,

In effect, it is a sort of a phasing type condition.

The provision for the roads and the footpaths that are not going to be adopted will come

forward in details through that timetable.

The first occupation relates to the trigger for when those details have to be provided.

But I think it is tricky to then include a trigger perhaps that then directs the delivery

of those.

I suppose we are thinking about the different triggers that sit in the section 106 for the

provision of the open space and when you might provide certain routes through it.

So it is felt that an agreement to when you must submit a timetable and then leave the

so that when you have the layout you can consider how that sits with the wider open space triggers in the 106.

Seat 19 - 3:08:17

Seat 19 - 3:08:37

Condition 19 on foul water. I wonder if it could be more definitive whereby no dwelling

is occupied until works for the provision for the disposal of foul water have been provided

in accordance with details that have first been approved.

Conditions 19, 20 and 21 are the ones recommended by Thames Water so that's their kind of standard.

approach. I didn't want to deviate. I don't think we really wanted to deviate from what

they were asking, but clearly there is some flexibility there if people want to, but that's

kind of what they put forward.

I think to add to that, the use of the word or is helpful because I think it does give

the flexibility that's required that there's either, you either demonstrate

there's capacity or you work with Thames Water to agree a phasing plan or the

works already completed and all of those three scenarios we don't know yet and

could be caught by this condition and I think that flexibility is probably

helpful. Okay. Thank you.

Does that cover sewage disposal?

Do those conditions cover that?

Seat 23 - 3:10:14

Yeah, my understanding is the first one, the three, one deals with water network upgrades is water supply.

Maybe getting 19 and 20 the wrong way round, but one deals with capacity of the sewage works

and one deals with capacity of the pipes dealing with foul drainage leading from the development

to the sewage treatment works.

So one is well, foul water infrastructure, the other ones to deal with pipes and things.

Seat 19 - 3:10:40

So I think they break it into three separate.

Seat 23 - 3:10:47

So 19 on foul water does cover sewage disposal?

Yes.

Seat 42 - 3:10:55

I mentioned before about the lack of good pedestrian access into town.

Where's improvements to the access, pedestrian access into town covered in the conditions?

I don't see it.

Seat 30 - 3:11:16

It is condition 15.

It relates to improvements of site works and site access works.

They are shown on a plan of those that sit within the non -motorised user assessment which

has been submitted as part of the application and is a core document.

That is the plan reference to which the works relate to.

Thank you.

Seat 19 - 3:12:05

Question, sorry, condition 20, surface water capacity. What does it mean in part one requiring

that surface water capacity exists off site to serve the development.

Seat 23 - 3:12:42

I go back to the Thames Water response. I presume it's to do with any surface water

going into their pipes because sometimes they do combine sewers so that may be the case

for it, in which case it's to do with the surface, I mean it will relate to their infrastructure

capacity so I think it's to do with the surface water, any surface water that goes into their

system they want to be satisfied that anything going into their system there is capacity

for it.

Seat 19 - 3:13:19

I think to me that that lacks some clarity as to what it's trying to achieve.

I can go back to the original Thames Water consultation response and see exactly what

it is saying. As it has come from Thames Water that is their request but I can find a copy

of the consultation response and we can come back on that.

Seat 30 - 3:13:57

Seat 30 - 3:14:01

The outline surface water drainage strategy includes a positive outfall.

This is probably not required because we are not connecting into the surface water, the

Thames water infrastructure.

For surface water.

So it's conveyed, stored and conveyed on the site and then it's a positive outfall.

So I don't, so none of our surface water is going, is relying on Thames water capacity,

TEM's capacity for the surface water network, certainly.

I know one of the problems TEM's water

Seat 23 - 3:15:17

and other water providers have been having recently

is that with foul drainage in particular

and capacity issues there,

the problem has been surface water draining

into their system rather than the water

foul drainage capacity from the development itself.

They can cope with that, but what they've got

is surface water draining into their system

in their pipe network and then ended up with the serious treatment works and that's causing

them to then release it into watercourses. So it may be something to do with that but

clearly whether that's reasonable for the applicant to have to deal with I don't know.

I'd like to have Pauline just going to print out the consultative response so I can give

you people.

Seat 19 - 3:16:11

And then condition 21, water network upgrades.

It is to do with water supply. Can they provide sufficient pressure and sufficient supply

of water to the development and they refer to it as water network upgrades.

So it's about water supply and pressure.

Condition 22 on construction traffic management. I would suggest taking out a requirement to

confirm the vehicle details on the basis that it would seem hard to predict?

And I would suggest adding a clause about erection of maintenance and security hoarding.

Okay.

Seat 23 - 3:18:08

So I go back on to the Thames Water one about surface water, so I can fact -track.

The response of December said Thames Water has contacted the developer in an attempt

to obtain the information and agree a position for surface water drainage, been unable to

do so.

We therefore request the condition and that shows no development should be occupied until

as set out surface water capacity exists.

So if things have moved on from then, that's fine.

But that was there.

Seat 19 - 3:18:46

A position that is not required then.

Absolutely, yeah.

I think that is quite a standard response.

I don't think it is required.

we've got an outline drainage strategy sits in the FRA that shows the positive

outfall for you to decide.

Condition 24, the landscape and ecological management plan.

What are your thoughts on the timing for implementation of that relative to the development?

Well, I mean the 30 year LEMP is standard because it ties in with the BNG requirement.

Seat 34 - 3:20:21

And just going forward condition 24 and which is the lamp condition 25 which is the

HMMP of exactly the same condition with exactly the same

Items highlighted so and the reasons for them are exactly the same so that there's a duplication there

I think it's referred to in Section 106, the HHMP.

Oh, offside it is.

Sorry Inspector, is there a comment on the time period for the LEMP,

specifically and why the 30 years. Sorry, your question was was it a question around

why the length for 30 years for the length? It was more about the time scale for implementation

of it.

Implementation of the landscape understood which is in the 1 -0.

Certainly the open space areas they will be delivered by 75 % of the occupations under

the 1 -0 -6.

Should we therefore have something in the condition?

The preference is to have the trigger sitting in the 106.

That sets where the requirements are for the maintenance management, MANCO obligations

sit also. This purpose of the LEMP is to set out the implemented the scheme and

the condition the earlier condition talks about the scheme being done in the

appropriate planting season. This condition is obviously a document that

shows how the landscape existing a new landscape is can be managed and

maintained over that period. That's the purpose of it to provide if it's a

landscape scheme has to be managed in the future and maintained.

And then condition 30 local area of play. Is this necessary in addition to the 106 open space scheme?

Which covers local area of play specification and completion.

In truth there's probably an element of duplication.

in. It is making sure that the reserve matters is submitted and it includes a local area

of play but then you look into the 106 and it is also itemised in that as part of the

components that sit within the open space coming forward.

The only point I'd add to that is the actual definition of the lapse specification in the

106 refers back to the details approved pursuant to reserve matters.

So I think that condition is helpful.

I think we like the condition because it just gives clarity for all parties of what should

be submitted.

If you're going to cross reference section 106, there's a lot in there sometimes and

it can get lost, so I don't think it harms to include specific references. It's just

saying it has to be included and we can make an assessment then.

I'd like to see that condition included.

Seat 19 - 3:25:07

If it's going to be included, does it need more details in terms of timescales for implementation?

I think that is covered in the 106 agreement.

And maintenance as well.

Yes

And do you consider a condition is necessary to require the development is not occupied until the means of access

In accordance with the approved plan

O43 M has been constructed in accordance with the approved details and retained

That is an additional condition, isn't it?

That is additional, yeah.

Yeah, sorry.

That would be an additional condition.

An additional condition.

Which appears entirely reasonable.

Does anyone else have any comments on conditions?

Mr Trotter, did you have anything you wanted to comment on the section 106?

Are there any applications for cost?

So in terms of the section 106, we'd agreed two weeks, which would be, is it the 28th?

In terms of the site visit today, is there anyone that would like to attend?

Inspector, sorry, may I just say I propose that I visited the back garden and walked

the boundary of Butler's Court over lunchtime. And what I saw there doesn't change the written

evidence I prepared and submitted to you and I don't feel I need to accompany you on that

visit. I think if interested parties want to be there I would need. The early comment

Seat 41 - 3:28:22

I would make on the county section 106 is that as I said before if there is things need

to be done off site in terms of the traffic impacts and that you decide that this development

this application should make a contribution towards that and the

amounts that's been provided in the transport infrastructure contribution is

it's not all adequate I'm not in a position to quantify what it ought to be

because the study of any modelling and stuff on traffic impact hasn't been done

obviously so it's a question of whether the 8 ,000 pound is it's an adequate sum

Seat 19 - 3:29:07

or not, I will just leave that as a question.

Sorry, I couldn't hear your question.

Seat 41 - 3:29:16

Sorry, on the contribution, I questioned earlier whether that is adequate if there are things

that ought to be done in terms of the incremental impact of traffic on this in the context of

other developments as well as to whether there should be additional provision there which

could cover additional requirements or obligations, whether it be with signage, routing or anything

else frankly. We're not in a position to quantify that in the absence of any modelling having

been done with the effects of that and possible solutions.

Thank you.

Seat 19 - 3:30:00

Inspector, if I could just add, the £8 ,000 in the County Section 106 agreement is dealing

with a specific piece of mitigation infrastructure required by the County Council in relation

to bus stop improvements.

It is restricted at the moment to that, yes.

So I think if interested parties want to attend the site visit then it would be better if

Council representative and someone from the appellant could attend as well.

I can certainly attend if other people are going.

Okay. It's about half an hour from here, is it?

Okay. Perhaps we could meet then just after three o 'clock on the outside.

access road is it okay to park there yeah okay does anyone else have anything

that they wish to raise before we close

thank you for your contributions hearing is now closed

Please provide any feedback/comments relating to the live webcast here. Any feedback submitted will be received to the Democratic Services team.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Cotswold District Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Planning Appeal - Thursday 14 May 2026, 10:00am - Cotswold District Council Webcasting

Planning AppealThursday, 14th May 2026 at 10:00am

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Seat 19 - 0:00:09

Seat 29 - 0:07:49

Seat 19 - 0:08:05

Seat 41 - 0:09:57

Seat 19 - 0:10:27

Seat 23 - 0:10:39

Seat 19 - 0:11:07

Seat 19 - 0:13:42

Seat 19 - 0:14:05

Seat 34 - 0:14:56

Seat 30 - 0:25:32

Seat 25 - 0:25:37

Seat 19 - 0:28:13

Seat 25 - 0:28:45

Seat 19 - 0:29:50

Seat 23 - 0:29:52

Seat 19 - 0:30:37

Seat 35 - 0:30:45

Seat 23 - 0:33:23

Seat 34 - 0:34:05

Seat 30 - 0:34:59

Seat 19 - 0:36:27

Seat 35 - 0:38:11

Seat 34 - 0:47:29

Seat 30 - 0:50:40

Seat 19 - 0:51:21

Seat 24 - 0:51:45

Seat 32 - 0:53:19

Seat 24 - 0:55:53

Seat 32 - 0:57:05

Seat 19 - 0:57:35

Seat 30 - 0:57:57

Seat 19 - 0:58:09

Seat 30 - 0:58:23

Seat 19 - 1:01:17

Seat 23 - 1:01:24

Seat 34 - 1:02:32

Seat 19 - 1:05:38

Seat 32 - 1:05:47

Seat 19 - 1:06:25

Seat 19 - 1:06:31

Seat 32 - 1:06:48

Seat 19 - 1:10:07

Seat 32 - 1:10:35

Seat 24 - 1:16:04

Seat 32 - 1:16:46

Seat 24 - 1:17:25

Seat 19 - 1:17:50

Seat 32 - 1:23:01

Seat 24 - 1:24:33

Seat 32 - 1:25:27

Seat 24 - 1:25:41

Seat 19 - 1:25:49

Seat 24 - 1:26:28

Seat 19 - 1:27:03

Seat 34 - 1:28:16

Seat 24 - 1:28:27

Seat 34 - 1:28:33

Seat 19 - 1:28:43

Seat 32 - 1:28:52

Seat 24 - 1:29:25

Seat 19 - 1:29:37

Seat 24 - 1:29:51

Seat 32 - 1:29:58

Seat 19 - 1:32:01

Seat 32 - 1:32:35

Seat 19 - 1:33:01

Seat 24 - 1:33:04

Planning Appeal
Thursday, 14th May 2026 at 10:00am