Planning and Licensing Committee - Wednesday 8 July 2026, 2:00pm - Start video at 1:30:49

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

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Councillor Ian Watson

1 Apologies

Share this agenda point

Julia Gibson, Officer
Councillor Ian Watson

2 Substitute Members

Share this agenda point

3 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Ian Watson

4 Minutes

Share this agenda point

Minutes , 10/06/2026 Planning and Licensing Committee

Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Nick Bridges
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
04. To confirm the minutes of a Planning Committee held 10 June 2026 (as amended)
Status: Ended

5 Chair's Announcements

Share this agenda point

Councillor David Fowles
Legal Services
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Paul Evans
Legal Services
Councillor Ian Watson

6 Public questions

Share this agenda point

Councillor Ian Watson

7 Member questions

Share this agenda point

Schedule of Applications

Share this agenda point

Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Nick Bridges
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Michael Vann
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Nikki Ind
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Officer
Officer
Legal Services
Julia Gibson, Officer
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson

8 25/02687/FUL Land Parcel East of Willersey Business Park

Share this agenda point

Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Town/Parish Council
Councillor Ian Watson
Ward Member
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Julia Judd
Officer
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Ian Watson
Officer
Councillor Julia Judd
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Julia Judd
Officer
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Officer
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles
Officer
Officer
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Paul Evans
Officer
Councillor Paul Evans
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Officer
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Paul Evans
Officer
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Nick Bridges
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Nick Bridges
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Officer
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Nikki Ind
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Nick Bridges
08. 25/02687/FUL Land East of Willersey Business Park - DEFER
Status: In progress
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
08. 25/02687/FUL Land East of Willersey Business Park - DEFER
Status: Ended
08. 25/02687/FUL Land East of Willersey Business Park - PERMIT
Status: In progress
Councillor Ian Watson

8 25/02687/FUL Land Parcel East of Willersey Business Park

Share this agenda point

9 26/00613/OUT Land to the East of Nostle Road

Share this agenda point

Officer
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Town/Parish Council
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Ian Watson
Applicant/Agent
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Nikki Ind
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles
Officer
Councillor David Fowles
Officer
Councillor David Fowles
Officer
Councillor David Fowles
Officer
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Julia Judd
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Nikki Ind
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Officer
Councillor Paul Evans
Officer
Councillor Nick Bridges
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Ian Watson
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Daryl Corps
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Ian Watson
09. 26/00613/OUT Land East of Nostle Road - PERMIT
Status: In progress
Councillor Ian Watson
09. 26/00613/OUT Land East of Nostle Road - PERMIT
Status: Ended
Councillor Ian Watson

10 25/02443/FUL Land to the West of Fosseway Farm

Share this agenda point

Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Ian Watson
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Town/Parish Council
Councillor Ian Watson
Applicant/Agent
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Ward Member
Ward Member
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor David Fowles
Officer
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Paul Evans
Officer
Councillor Paul Evans
Officer
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Paul Evans
Officer
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Nikki Ind
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Nikki Ind
Councillor Ian Watson
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
10. 25/02443/FUL Land West of Fosseway Farm - DEFER (Subject to Site Inspection)
Status: In progress
Councillor Ian Watson
10. 25/02443/FUL Land West of Fosseway Farm - DEFER (Subject to Site Inspection)
Status: Ended
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Ian Watson

11 Sites Inspection Briefing

Share this agenda point

12 Licensing Sub-Committee

Share this agenda point

Councillor David Fowles
Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

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

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:00:00

Members of the public, those watching online, members and officers are very warm welcome

in every sense of the word to this planning committee. We will be using today electronic

voting so I think all members are aware how this works but the results of votes will be immediately

available to the public. I must ask members of the public not to speak to

councillors or committee members during this meeting and of course vice versa.

We are going to have some public speakers. Each public speaker will be

allowed three minutes to talk. That will be timed. If you'll finish soon that's

fine, but up to three minutes.

And when a ward member speaks,

that would be for five minutes.

1 Apologies

I'm now gonna go over to apologies.

Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:01:06

Yes, we've had apologies from Councillor Dillis -Neeles,

Chair, Councillor Ian Watson is now chairing the meeting

with Councillor Nicky Inge as Vice Chair.

2 Substitute Members

3 Declarations of Interest

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:01:19

Thank you. Can I ask for any declarations of interest from members or officers for today's

agenda?

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:01:34

Yes, thank you, Chair. Yes, just regarding the planning application in my ward, the land

by the Fosseway Garden Centre. I will deliver my ward members speech talk and then after

that I will leave the council chamber and not take part in the debate or the vote. Thank

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:02:02

you. Thank you very much. Any more declarations of interest? I don't see anything there. Then

4 Minutes

we turn to the minutes of the last meeting. They're in. Your reports back. Are there any

comments or queries on the last set of minutes? Councillor Brassington.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:02:30

Thank you, Chair. At the last meeting I raised a question related to Rencombe Airfield. It

was said that further details on the enforcement timeline was requested. I don't recall seeing

anything yet. So make a note of that please. Thank you.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:02:51

That's been noted, Councillor Brasington. We'll take that down. I think, Councillor

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:02:57

Coleman, you had your hand up. Yes, sir. Thank you, Chair. Excellent minutes

as we're becoming used to it. It wasn't always this way. So just one typo near the bottom

of page nine in the little paragraph beginning Councillor Julia Judd. See we need another

letter R in the word deferring. I think I found something even more trivial.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:03:20

Thank you, Councillor Coleman. In that case, I would like to go to a vote on the acceptance

of those meetings.

Yes.

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:03:32

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:03:35

Councillor Fowls, seconder.

Councillor Coleman.

Councillor

5 Chair's Announcements

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:04:18

Thank you.

we would like, and this is for members,

there will be a licencing training for all members

on the 27th of July between 12, 30 and 2 p .m.

Location is in the chamber

or it will be accessible by teams.

The next planning meeting is on Tuesday,

the 11th of August instead of the 12th.

This is because of an extraordinary full council meeting,

which will be taking place on the Wednesday.

So I'm sure we'll see more communication on that,

but the next planning meeting will be on Tuesday, the 11th.

All members have received supplementary packs.

I'll come to you in a moment, David, if I may.

Supplementary packs, there is additional information

on items agendas 8, 9 and 10. You can find those in your report packs.

David, you had your hand up.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:05:37

Could you just remind us of the, I didn't quite catch the time on the 27th of July.

Of course. On the 27th of July, it's between 12 .30 in the afternoon and 2pm.

So in total, one and a half hours.

Could I just ask, Marie, is that the same licencing training that you gave prior to the last meeting that I attended?

So is it additional training or a second bow to the first training session that some of us attended?

Legal Services - 0:06:10

It will be based on the same training that a few members did attend to do their annual update.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:06:19

Thank you for that clarification.

Paul?

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:06:25

Thank you Marie.

Just for clarity, does that mean that if we attended that training

session we don't need to come to the one on the 27th?

Legal Services - 0:06:34

I would be satisfied that the three or four members that attended

don't have to attend as it is so close in proximity to the previous

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:06:53

training. Thank you. Thank you, Marie. And my last announcement before we go on, I'd

like to remind committee members that when we talk it will be in two phases. First the

questions. These are technical questions on the cases before you, which we can make to

and then we will go into debate where we could talk about our comments on what we're doing.

And I'll be keeping my eye on that as well, our chair.

So that concludes the chair's...

6 Public questions

7 Member questions

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:07:40

Thank you. Are there any member questions?

Thank you.

Schedule of Applications

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:07:53

In that case.

Oh yeah.

I'd like at this point for the councillors to introduce themselves.

maybe Nick if we can start with you and we'll go around the room.

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:08:18

Councillor Nick Bridges, Watermore.

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:08:27

Councillor Julia Jardine, Ward.

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:08:31

I'm Councillor Paul Evans, I represent the Beaches Ward in Sower and Cessna.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:08:36

Ray Brathington, Four Apies, Saarin sister.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:08:40

Good afternoon, I'm Councillor David Fowles,

Colne Valley, which runs from Fosse Cross to Letchley.

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:08:51

Michael Van, Fairford North.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:08:56

Patrick Colman, representing the village of Stratton in the town of Saarin sister.

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:09:04

Councillor Daryl Corr representing Morthley Marsh West Ward in the North Cotswolds which

also includes Borton on the Hill, Lower Leamington and Bassford.

Councillor Nikki Ind - 0:09:15

Councillor Nicky and I represent Tepry Eastern Rural which includes Longneatonship to Moyne

and Ashley with Calcutton.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:09:24

Councillor Ian Watson representing the Tepary Town Ward.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:09:33

With that, oh officers of course, maybe you start with Martin.

Officer - 0:09:39

Thank you, Martin Perks, Principal Planning Officer.

Officer - 0:09:45

Hello, I'm Geraldine Le Coint, I'm Assistant Director of Planning Services at Cotswold.

Legal Services - 0:09:52

Good afternoon, I am Maire Barnes, legal advisor to this committee.

Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:09:58

Julie Gibson, Democratic Services Officer.

Officer - 0:10:12

Matthew Chopp, I'm Gloucester County Council's Highways Development Management Officer covering

Cotswold and Charlton District and I'm joined today by my colleague Charlotte Chambers who's

I'm here to observe.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:10:28

Yeah, thank you very much.

It takes us now to the schedule of applications.

The first application is land parcel

east of Willers -Lit Business Park, pages 17 to 128.

8 25/02687/FUL Land Parcel East of Willersey Business Park

I'm sure members remember this has been before

the council once before where this committee asked for the input of highways.

There has since been a report and a visit. The report is available in your

supplementary reports pack and we have the officer with us today. The

recommendation is to permit subject to or no objection from the biodiversity

and associated conditions, with the completion of S106 legal agreement covering matters such

as affordable housing, self -builds or custom -build plots, biodiversity net gain, monitoring and

financial contribution to education, library services, highways and Willers -Lee Parish

Council. I do have on agenda item number eight, representatives of the Town and

Parish Council. I would like to invite Mr. Kevin Donoghue to come forward. Oh sorry

Officer - 0:12:11

apologies Martin yes thank you yes just to provide you with an update obviously

on additional pages pages six and seven there's two further responses from the

parish council regarding foul drainage and a section on its contribution to

leisure particular multi -use games area so I'll give you a moment to read

through those and then I'll go through the PowerPoint.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:13:33

Okay, I think I'm going to hand back to Martin at this stage.

Officer - 0:13:40

Thank you.

There we go.

I won't go through the whole PowerPoint again, but I'll just give members a quick refresher

in terms of where we were and where the site is.

Allocated site in the northeastern edge of the village of Willacy, outlined in red, pink

colour.

Members may recall a previous application for 30 houses in the southwestern corner of

the village or to be adjacent to the southwestern edge of the village that we looked at and

determined to be acceptable in February.

So let's put that in context with this current proposal.

The application site outlined in red to the east of the business village.

Planning Commission exists for employment land on the grass strip to the left of that

red line as you see between the industrial estate and the current housing scape.

Housing development proposal.

And it shows the approved development to the west of the proposed housing site which is

yet to be built out but is extant and it also shows the layout of the proposed housing development

that's now before us.

It's a full application, so this is the scheme as would be built out if permitted.

I'll quickly flash over that.

Again, house types, fairly standard mix of vernacular traditional style properties.

Predominantly two -storey, but some single -storey.

And in terms of highway works, looking back along the B road towards the centre of Willacy,

the top left picture looking westwards towards the roundabout.

The pavement on the left there will be upgraded

as part of the highway works.

And the bottom right picture is looking back

towards the application site from the roundabout.

Again, highway works would improve the footway

on the left side of the carriageway

as you're looking along the road,

including a tactile crossing

and pedestrian crossing as well.

This shows the highway works,

the extent of the highway works that would be undertaken

as part of the proposal. At the moment there's two highway works options. One includes the

approved auto sleepers development and the access for that development which has not yet been built

out and the other option is what would happen if the auto sleepers access does not get built out.

So either or option is covered by the submitted details and is covered by the condition. It takes

into account both options. Beusman site entrance looking, the top left picture is looking eastwards

from the site entrance towards the speed restriction sign

coming into the village.

And the bottom right is looking westwards

towards the village.

Shows the extent of the bend,

but again highlights the extent of visibility,

which is considered reasonable

for the level of development being proposed.

And there was some discussion at the last meeting

about bus stops and their locations

and which ones were in that service

and which ones were not.

Highways have been looking into the matter

with their transport units, looking at bus routes and whatever.

And the latest response from highways covers this matter and has now requested a contribution

to bus services and bus stops.

The applicant has agreed to that contribution.

So as part of that package of works, the county council can then look at improvements to bus

service provision, bus stop provision within that's part of the village and liaise with

the parish council in terms of where the bus locations are going forward.

I think we want some flexibility at the moment and that's something that could be discussed going forward between highways and the parish council in

the best way of spending that money and taking it forward rather than having a rigid fixed

locations at the moment. So that will be part of the section 106 in terms of financial contribution and would be dealt with through

highways

in the future.

So yeah, thank you very much.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:17:41

Thank you, Martin. I'd now like to invite Kevin O 'Donoghue, Willersley Parish Council,

if he's here. Yeah.

All right.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:18:14

Just a reminder, it's three minutes, Ms. Dotty, on you.

Town/Parish Council - 0:18:24

Okay, so we submitted two additional papers for your consideration. The first was on recreation

provision. The MPPF and the local plan both require developments to make recreation provision

for all age groups, but this proposal has almost no recreational provision for anyone

over the age of eight.

It provides a leap for early years children,

but importantly, no required recreation space.

So for juniors, teenagers and adults, there's nothing.

No recreation space, nowhere for ball games.

And the reason is because the declared open space

can't be used.

Most of it is a fenced attenuation pond,

and the rest is designated as wildflower meadow.

Great for the biodiversity calculation,

but you can't kick a ball, run around or play games in grass that is knee -high.

So we now have 60 homes here, 30 at Folly View and another 30 in the

pre -application stage. The council's playing pitch strategy states that

multi -age all -weather facilities are essential to meet demand for new housing

and the infrastructure delivery plan states that planning obligations should

be collected to improve existing facilities. So it's clear that a mugger is needed for

sports that entail running around – tennis, paddleball, football, netball and so on.

However, a mugger is not cheap and Willersey will receive zero sill from this major development

– nothing – because the parish camp will already have been reached by the Folly View

application, which means the only funding source available are the 106 contributions.

So a significant financial contribution, one that brings the project within reach,

is surely the least that can be expected here. A contribution that is in line with

agreements reached elsewhere. The Parish Council does not oppose this development

but it is the largest housing expansion in the history of the village and all we

ask is that it complies with all the appropriate policies and planning

regulations. So we invite you to pass on a member that instructs the officer to

secure a significant 106 ledger contribution for a mugger

because the development fails to make recreation provision

for all age groups.

On sewage, there is a pre -commencement condition

for system improvements, but no preoccupation condition

requiring those improvements to be completed.

If they don't happen, the developer would still have

the right to connect to the network.

A preoccupation condition would stop that,

and one has been applied to the fresh water improvements with Thames Water

and 7 Trent in their submission have asked for the same condition.

Pre -occupation conditions don't require the applicants agreement

and we invite you to support 7 Trent's request

and vote to add this condition. Thank you.

Thank you, we're at perfect timing. Thank you.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:21:31

And the decision making I

Sp probable.

really to.

Ward Member - 0:21:56

Good afternoon. I'm Gina Blomfield one of the district councillors for Camden and Vale Ward

The two main issues in this planning application which of course grave concern to the residents of Willowsy our road safety and sewage capacity

Can I give a big thank you to all those on the planning committee for asking for this?

Application to be deferred in order for gloss highways to make a site visit as you felt serious consideration

consideration should be given to improving pedestrian and vehicle safety for those entering or leaving this new development

Whether by car bicycle or as a pedestrian

Possibly even with a push chair or wheelchair

It is good to see today that we have representatives from gloss highways, so thank you for attending this afternoon

Those on that committee

were

attended the site meeting, this is a committee, were generally terrified by the speed and

quantity of the traffic on the B4632, including the many large articulated vehicles.

As we are all aware, the volume of traffic on this road is likely to increase significantly

due not only to large new developments in Woolsey and Mickleton itself in the Cotswold

district but of course also across the borders into Warwickshire and Worcestershire.

In the former, that being Warwickshire, 10 ,000 to 12 ,000 new houses are pencilled in to be

built along this same B road in the next 25 years.

Gloss Highways have rubber stamped this application with additional highway safety measures including

gateway features, traffic calming, pedestrian signing and a vehicle activated sign plus

lining and surfacing upgrades. I feel these are insufficiently robust, especially taking

into consideration the planning application which you saw on the map earlier that Martin

Perks showed. There is an industrial site nearby which has got a new vehicle exit onto

the same road and that will be handling commercial vehicles. So they're very close to each other.

And you can see it on page 89.

This to us seems to be a serious missed opportunity

for Gloss Highways to have looked

at both applications together,

particularly as this industrial site is in the same ownership

as the planning proposal you're looking at today.

As there's no doubt, two new road entrances so close

to each other will have a significant impact.

Willersey would have appreciated more structural changes to the road and footpath, as the access

for this new development is a tricky point for good visibility on the B4632, where the

traffic enters the village from St .bury, having often not slowed down sufficiently, and when

the new access is added from the industrial site this will only cause more risk.

Gloss Highways admits that the existing footway to the village is substandard in places and could do with improvements,

but have just deferred a decision on this until an indefinite point in the future when they determine there may be more demand for its use.

The other great concern for Willesee is the significant sewage issues as well as highway safety.

I will be meeting 7 Trent next week with some representatives from the parish council and my fellow councillor Tom Stowe who couldn't be here today

To make sure the serious worries about the inadequacies of the present sewage treatment capacity are addressed

Ahead of any of the new houses in this development and others in Woolsey

Can be occupied

Therefore I fully support Woolsey parish councils suggested additional condition for 7 Trent

that the drainage improvement works to be completed ahead of the occupation of any of

the new houses. Thank you very much.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:26:05

Thank you Gina. I would now like to open this to questions and again technical questions

specifically to do with this application to Martin and Matthew Jopp is with us

from GCC highways thank you very much for being with us today if you've got

any questions for GCC highways I will I will put them Matthew's way so first of

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:26:44

all I had a council passing to cheque a couple of questions on the updates on

page 18, it says the applicant has yet to confirm whether the requested contributions

are acceptable. Have we an answer to that?

Yes, thank you, Chair. Yes, the applicant is happy with the requested contributions

from highways.

Thank you. I meant all the contributions. Yes, thank you. Also, it says biodiversity

is still ongoing. I know it's subject to agreement, but at this stage is it still ongoing?

Yes, issues related to protected species habitats have all been resolved.

The issue remains biodiversity net gain and just the metric calculations involved in that.

It's a quite complex process, so there's still discussions ongoing about those elements,

but they're not overcomable, if you see what I'm saying.

Next question.

You mentioned the industrial estate.

I assume that's a general industrial estate, is it?

Willy, the allocated established employment estate, the Willysey one, is subject to numerous

permissions and is generally what would be known as B1, B2, B8 of what has become classy.

So a mix of uses there.

Thank you.

And finally, I can't find any reference to solar panels that I assume is not proposed?

No, there's none shown on the plans.

Officer - 0:28:05

We're happy that the applicant shows a range of other measures to deal with sustainable energy, renewable energy, climate change

so without the need to introduce the solar panels in this instance.

We're not removing PD rights, so there would be nothing potentially to stop people once they move into houses touching solar panels,

but they're not included in the development as it stands.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:28:24

Thank you, Ray. Councillor Jude.

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:28:28

Thank you, Chair.

I just wondered if it we've got the privilege of the highways officer who's done a site visit I believe and

We all want to ask the same questions of him is basically his views of the cumulative effect of all these

housing estates which are going up in Gloucestershire and

In Warwickshire and from what Councillor Bloomfield was saying Worcestershire, and I just wondered chair if it might be a sensible

opportunity to actually invite this officer to come and just give us his

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:29:07

brief and ask him to sit at the front. I think that the opposite is to answer

questions. His brief, the letter and report are within the report back if

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:29:19

you've got questions based on that. Absolutely, so it's absolutely fine. I'll turn my back to

everyone else to talk to you. But thank you very much for doing the site visit.

Officer - 0:29:31

What were your impressions? Thank you Councillor Jurd and through you chair. I

undertook a site visit on a day I think Tuesday in July. The weather was fine. I

It was performing its normal function as a class B distributor route.

It was carrying a reasonable proportion, a reasonable volume of traffic.

I observed that traffic was moving at the speeds that were surveyed, broadly at the

speeds surveyed in 2021 and in 2025.

So I didn't think that there was any concerns with the speed data that was collected at

that time and my impression was that there are HGVs and occasional farm

traffic movements on that route. Currently your initial question

about the cumulative impacts of development along the route are valid

and I just want to assure you that they are considered in our

assessment more broadly and we have to consider whether the proposed

highway safety mitigation measures that are the form part of the proposed

package of highway measures associated this application are proportionate and

effective in achieving the highway safety benefits, which we think that they likely

will. We also have to ensure that internal consultees such as our traffic regulation

order team and who consider whether the police would be likely to support traffic regulation

orders for enforcement of speed limit changes and so on are,

would be supportive and we think broadly we agree in principle

the suitability of the scheme at this stage.

You asked, I think it was raised as well, that the question of

whether the auto sleepers site and the sort of cumulative

effect of two access points so closely located was considered

as part of the assessment and just want to assure you that it absolutely was and is part

of what's being considered and conditioned as part of this scheme. Yes, hopefully that

goes some way to answering your question.

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:32:29

Thank you. That summary is exactly what I was looking for. So I'd like to pursue further.

Forgive me, I can't actually remember because I think we did ask this question at the last

meeting but when these houses, some of them are family houses and there will be teenagers

who want to get out on their bicycles and things like that.

We know there is a path that is intended from the site back into the village but part of

that goes on the road.

Would you allow your 12 year old, 14 year old on a bicycle on that road coming out of

that junction?

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:33:04

Officer - 0:33:05

Thank you, Councillor Jardin.

Through you, Chair.

My child is actually eight years old, and we are actually

encouraged when considering designing for cyclists to

consider people aged 8 to 88, and I find that extraordinary

because I don't know why you'd stop cycling at 88 suddenly,

but there we are.

We just, again, we do also have to consider what is

proportionate and cost -effective highway mitigation works to

enable and facilitate development.

So we do consider national design guidance such as in LTM 120 for the

appropriate levels of protection to afford cyclists. We do also expect that

a development of this scale would generate some additional cycling

movements each day on on the network. What I would say is we would expect

those cyclists to be in carriageway mixed with general traffic. The highway safety measures,

the package of highway measures that are proposed to be introduced, we do think they are likely

to reduce the speed of traffic entering the village. As I've said before, the B road is

to carry a mixed proportion and a reasonably high volume of traffic.

Ultimately, it's for this committee to decide whether you accept that the scheme designer

has responsibilities and duties under CDM regulations to consider the safety of

all users. We have to consider as the highway authority that safe and suitable

access is achievable for all users of the development. That includes those

relatively limited number of expected daily cycling movements that would be

generated by the site. So we have to consider whether the proposed mitigation

measures are proportionate and cost effective to achieve a suitable level of

protection for those cyclists. My view is there are safety benefits

associated with the proposed package of highway measures.

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:35:34

Can I ask another question, Chair, please? Not associated with highways, I'm

interesting presentation about the, he called it the mugger, which was, it's just quite

an interesting, because it seems to be somewhere for up to 80 -year -olds to play and then they

can get on their bicycle and go on the main road. But I just asked Martin, the case officer,

can you expand on that and explain can we condition an application to provide

that what the parish council are asking for is some provision for leisure

Officer - 0:36:25

activities for teenagers? We're satisfied that the development has proposed

provide adequate facilities for recreation and outdoors play outdoor

The developer is willing to make a contribution of 8 ,000 pounds towards the recreation ground

in the village centre, so there is a contribution to the village towards recreational facilities

there.

We can only request a contribution if it is necessary to make the development acceptable

in planning terms.

We don't consider that the provision of the mugger is necessary to make this development

acceptable.

Would you refuse this application if the mugger was not provided or contribution was not made towards it?

And we don't think we would so on that basis

We think the development does comply with policy and guidance in its current form and just promote adequate provision for

recreation and play in addition as a

Contribution as well that's been made towards the recreation grant and the development would generate still money

the 15 % of the cap or a cap of I think it's £100 per dwelling, existing dwelling within

the parish, so it's the higher of the 15 % or the £100 per dwelling per year.

But there would be nothing to stop the parish council requesting additional sill money on

top of that.

They can make a claim for infrastructure contribution as well if they make the claim for a mugger

as part of that package.

So yes, I think overall the scheme does make adequate provision for recreation and the

Parish Council will still receive some money towards recreational improvements as part

of this development as well, which would mean it would accord with the policies.

I can understand what the Parish Council and their aspirations to create a mugger, but

I don't think we can require this developer to make a contribution towards it in this

instance because this development is not dependent on the provision of the mugger to be acceptable.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:38:22

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:38:24

The other interesting point that the parish council made was about conditioning the adequacy

of the sewage drainage system before the properties are occupied.

That seems so incredibly reasonable to me.

I can't really understand why it has to be conditioned.

Officer - 0:38:48

Could you explain that please?

Yeah, I mean, I've got the 7 Trent response here to the application, which may help to

clarify it.

With a view to better understanding how a network is operating, 7 Trent is undertaking

a number of investigations.

Once these investigations are completed, if improvements are deemed necessary, so it's

not clear that they are, these will be undertaken in accordance with our investment plans.

Unfortunately, we're not yet able to say with certainty what may need to be done or any

necessary works may be completed. In light of the above, given 7th and Trent Water is

unable to object to this proposal, we request that any approval should be conditioned as

follows. And the condition as requested says that development here by permitted should

not commence until drainage plans for the disposal of foul and surface water flows have

been submitted to and approved by local authority and the scheme shall be implemented in accordance

with the approved details before development is first brought into use.

So the current condition that I put forward in that R .L.

in the schedule is based on an appeal decision from 25 miles up the road in Witchhaven District,

which at Planning Inspector, the same issues were raised.

The Planning Inspector recommended that style of condition where you require details

of the Thaljoni scheme to be agreed prior to commencement.

And that's positive for all parties.

That means the developer isn't going to go onto site

and have to delay because there's been a long time period

sorting out issues with 7 Trent Water.

The developer can be clear before commencing work

what 7 Trent Water are going to require

in terms of the potential time frame for doing any works.

And the condition then sets out a time frame for those works.

And that would be agreed as part of the condition compliance

process.

And it may well be that 7 Trent Water come back and say,

we're happy that some of the houses can be occupied but we just want a two -year

period everything done within two years. So the current condition gives more

flexibility in that respect and it isn't rigid rigidly just saying everything has

to be agreed by Thames Water prior to occupation because at the moment that's

a separate under separate legislation under the Water Industry Act and you're

relying therefore on a third party under their own legislation to deal with the

matter. I think that, I mean, yeah, I mean, I think based on the fact that the current

condition is based on an appeal, appeal condition made by an planning inspector, we think that's

reasonably robust and covers the matter. It does mention timeframe and that's what we

would agree as part of with 7 Trent Water as part of the condition compliance process.

Whether there's a need to say prior to occupation of all dwellings, we don't know if that is

actually reasonable or necessary because at the moment, as 7 Trent Water has said, they've

got to investigate what the actual issues are.

My understanding from Shep and Trent Water, based on this site

and the other site, the Folly View, is that their treatment

works have the capacity to accommodate foul waste

from development.

The issue is surface water getting into the system and then

causing a problem down the line.

So it's not necessarily here that the problem is likely

to arise.

It's likely to arise further down, and they need to go and

investigate where that's happening.

So it may well be that it can be dealt with quite easily, but at the moment 7 -Trent Water

haven't specifically looked into what, where it is.

So that's why the condition is a bit more flexible in that approach in trying to, but

what it does bring forward is getting the drainage scheme agreed prior to commencement,

because it may well be that 7 -Trent come back and say, well actually it may take us two

years to do something here.

In which case the timeframe can be dealt with accordingly then.

And the developer can then potentially delay up commencement until those works are taken care of.

I mean, we've recommended a five -year commencement condition anyway rather than three.

So it gives the developer a bit more flexibility in terms of timeframes in case things do crop up with seven -trim water.

But we're also looking at, you know, a 60 -house scheme.

It may take 18 months, two years.

We don't know whether this is going to be the developer.

They may sell it on.

It could take a year to build out.

It could be two years before these are occupied anyway.

So there is quite a long time leading time, which the developer and

7 Trent Water can sort out the various issues that are currently been

experienced in the village and put measures in place to try and rectify those.

So I leave it with members whether you want to want to put that clause in,

but at the moment we think there's sufficient protection there with the condition as it stands.

but obviously it's for members to decide whether they want the extra element in it.

Thank you.

Councillor Sponger.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:43:44

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the time being spent on this last point to do with the found drainage,

I don't think I quite see why we can't use the shorter form suggested on page 6 of the

supplementary papers by the parish council which has only one sentence, the scheme should

be implemented in accordance with approved details before the development is first brought

into use. I can see that the longer version that you have quoted to us is sound but it

does leave too much wiggle room to allow for confidence given the background and context

of water supply and foul water drainage in the whole of our nation at the moment, never

mind in the Cotswolds. It also suggests on this page 6, headed formal representation

of foul drainage condition, 7 Trent submission requested the condition that the scheme shall

implemented in accordance with the approved details of the

public support and use.

So are we agreeing that phrasing and can we also add in that

there should be no occupation until that scheme is ready?

Or have I misunderstood as I fear I have?

Ultimately I can only go back to what I've already said and I

I don't think there's a need for it,

but it's ultimately a matter for you.

If you consider that extra,

Officer - 0:45:15

you want that extra assurance,

we'd have to find a way of including it in.

The last bit of the current condition,

I mean, I wouldn't want to go as brief

as what the parish council's comment,

because that doesn't require anything

to be dealt with before commencement.

It's quite weak in that respect.

You could have the developer starting, then finding,

going down the line, trying to get seven trends agreement,

having half done the development,

and then seven trends thought it was going to take us two years

to resolve it.

And then we just limbo while that happens.

So...

Mr. Chair, thank you so much for coming.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:46:03

I was one of those who on a rather wet and unpleasant day,

surprising because I think it might be in early June, was on site and whilst I

wouldn't quite say terrified it was an occasion which will stick in my memory

and to me it seemed to be to do with heavy goods vehicles doing their best to

get accelerate up to the forthcoming higher speed limit as they come uphill

out of the village and equally delaying their braking coming downhill as people

often do until they're often a little way into the 30 mile an hour zone.

One of the features I was struck by, I don't know if you've got a slide that shows it,

is that almost directly opposite the site, as I recall, is a public footpath leading

straight to the church, a very important part of the village.

And whilst we know there aren't very many children being born these days and therefore

there won't be a huge number of children on the site.

It will be an obvious place for people from this development

to walk.

But it looks and felt, and I've been a counsellor a long time

and I'm pretty inured to these things,

but it did feel hazardous crossing that road.

So what can we do to make it safer to cross the road there?

And do we still hold that we don't put up

traffic light, any sort of pedestrian crossing with lights

unless there's enough pedestrians and enough traffic, a formula that used to apply 40 years ago.

Officer - 0:47:38

Thank you, Councillor Coleman, and through you, Chair.

So the proposed off -site works, we feel, form a comprehensive package of highway safety improvements.

It includes amendments to the speed limit regime, introduction of a gateway feature,

traffic calming, pedestrian signing indicating pedestrians crossing at the public right -of -way

footpath that you referred to, a vehicle -activated sign, as well as lining and surfacing upgrades.

So these works, we feel, represent a coordinated response

to the development and do provide a clear safety benefit.

That's how I've considered it in the assessment.

Thank you.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:48:31

Oh, Councillor Fowles.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:48:36

I'm interested in Councillor Coleman's summary of child

birth rates in the UK, which I'm going to comment on later.

I don't want to prolong the discussion about drainage and foul water,

but given that we seem to be in this sort of situation repeatedly with Thames Water and with Severn Trent,

where we can't stop development because statutory responsibility is to connect,

but we can introduce conditions that say properties can't be occupied, but obviously they can build.

Given that there's an imminent review and investigation about to be undertaken by 7Tren,

are we able to defer this application until such time as we get a definitive view on that?

Or is that not something we are allowed to do? That's question number one.

Question number two, building on what Councillor Judd said about the contribution to a mugger,

I was concerned not just about the contribution but the comment made by the parish council

that there was no available land on the site

because it's roads and houses and obviously drainage.

So I don't know if there is any land there,

so a bit of clarification there.

And then I'd really like a bit more clarification

on these long list of deposits and contributions

and so on on page 18.

I didn't know what a travel plan bond deposit was

and what an education transport contribution

is they seem like really large sums of money.

I just wondered if the case officer could explain those

figures or the descriptions in a little bit more detail.

So the first question is can we defer?

Second question, is there any land where some form of leisure

facility could be created for teenagers and adults?

And third question is a bit more explanation on the figures that

are identified on the top of page 18.

Thank you.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:50:37

On the first question, I'm not inclined not to defer.

We deferred once for further reports.

I think we have enough information before us.

We've had the input from highways.

We've had the questions today.

If this committee votes to refer, then we will go along with it.

But at the moment, are you proposing that we defer?

At this point, Chairman, are you telling us we can't?

Councillor David Fowles - 0:51:12

If, as the discussion continues and we get to comments,

I might well make a proposal because I'm well aware,

having worked in Willersie and having been on other site visits

there, that they have a serious problem with foul water drainage

there, and it always seems to me to be the case without making

a comment that individual news schemes come on with really

clever schemes to secure foul water etc. but it's joining a network where people

which is already over over capacity yeah and as many problems so that's why I

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:51:49

may well ask for a deferment at the appropriate time yes yeah if I may I

said I was inclined not to defer and secondly could we have specific

Councillor David Fowles - 0:51:58

questions for the officers that but can I ask the other two questions

available land on the site. You had two follow -up questions if you go ahead and

ask the officer on those. If the officer could just clarify, it's not just the

money, the financial contribution, is there space on the site to have a mugger or

playground or whatever? I can't see one on there, that's the second

question and the third is about the sums of money, a bit more explanation as to

Officer - 0:52:27

what they are. Thank you. So I will just answer the first question about the

trends as well. As we mentioned previously, they do have a statutory duty to connect development

to their system. So if there is a request to come forward from a developer, they have

to connect the development to their system and make sure the upgrades are there. So regardless

of their response at the moment, they have to do it. It's not something they cannot do.

It's just the same as if an applicant comes to highways and wants highway work done. The

separate process is in place to do that. So I don't think a deferral would potentially

achieve anything because it's just covering something that's covered under other legislation.

In terms of the site itself, yes, there's a northern area of the site which is set aside

for a local equipped area of play plus an open space, a kick about area.

There is a balanced attenuation pond in that area, but that's all deemed to be sufficient

for the level of development now being proposed and for those future residents of the development.

So we believe that's fine.

The mugger wouldn't go on this site.

It would be provided somewhere else within the parish by the parish council.

on the highway contributions.

Yes, this obviously development will increase

number of residents and children in the village,

potentially increase the need for the County Council

to provide public school transport to local schools.

And then it's reasonable that they,

the developer makes a contribution towards those.

Yes.

I mean, Matthew may be able to,

can I defer to Matthew on that one?

Officer - 0:53:50

Yes, thank you.

So first of all, I think you asked about the residential travel plan contributions.

So a residential travel plan provides a structured framework for encouraging sustainable travel.

It's supported by monitoring and a review mechanism over a five -year period to ensure

that impacts are managed over time, not just from the first occupations.

It's, yeah, so that's the purpose of the travel plan.

And we have a policy, county -wide policy on residential travel plans, which kicks in at

50 dwellings.

So this is a 60 dwelling application, so it's above the threshold for that.

and it's the standard monitoring fee and

deposit or bond

Contribution calculation that sets out in the county -wide policy, so that's how we arrive at that calculated figure

on the

Just quickly on the public transport improvements because that was one of the questions that was really raised at committee last time when you deferred

I've had numerous conversations with Kevin, another parish council and local councillors

around this point, as well as internally with our integrated transport unit, the passenger

transport team.

And we have identified that public transport improvements will be directed to functional

stops at the pike, the mini roundabout, with cost estimates currently in the range of approximately

£13 ,600 to £23 ,600 depending on the final specification and delivery constraints. So

we're suggesting that some flexibility is afforded so that the county can work closely

with the parish council to identify the exact specification and stops and

shelter structures that you might you might wish to see installed as part of

that scheme and so we're offering a contribution range which will be then be

negotiated and agreed through the section 106 agreement so we've agreed

with with Martin as case officer that that's an appropriate way to deal with

that is a planning obligation for the planning control.

On the education transport contributions,

these are required to mitigate the impact of development

on school transport provision, both for primary and secondary

school pupils.

It's based on the expected pupil yield

of the site, which is calculated based on current birth

rates rather than past birth rates,

as was previously alluded to.

And we then look at the available places within the

nearest primary and secondary schools and what

the transport requirement will be for that, what the

existing transport provision is, and the gap in funding

for a period of three years is what that contribution seeks.

So it's only a three -year period that it funds.

So it is just to note that it may seem like a substantial figure,

but actually that is a public liability that it's been taking on.

Yes, so hopefully that explains the nature and the calculation

of those contributions adequately.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:57:38

That's a brilliant explanation.

You can come again.

Yeah, thank you very much.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:57:45

Thank you David. I've got no more questions at this point. I would at this point before

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:57:58

we go to vote. In fact thank you chair I have a couple of questions. Firstly for Highways

Office so we talked about vehicle activation signs and other pedestrian safety measures

at the point of the footpath that Councillor Coleman highlighted. Did I read this correctly

that you were proposing to put a raising of the carriageway surface at the point of that

as a safety measure? No, you didn't. So it would be dependent on signage to vehicles

that pedestrians might be crossing and a vehicle activation sign. Those are the two primary

Officer - 0:58:43

So, just to repeat, and I don't know if we could put on screen, Martin, because I notice

you did have a slide previously with the proposed offsite works.

Yeah, it doesn't, sadly, it doesn't quite go far enough to the right because it doesn't

then show the gateway feature or the relocated speed limit signs.

Or indeed, you can just see the start of the half of the sign,

which is the sort of warning sign to motorists

that pedestrians will be crossing the road

on the public footpath.

But no, the package of highway safety improvements

includes amendments to the speed limit regime.

So that's further to the right off screen.

It includes gateway features.

again further to the right off screen on this image.

Traffic calming, again further to the right off screen on this,

that's associated with the gateway feature.

So effectively, I think it's a dragon's teeth style traffic calming marking,

so it's sort of a visual narrowing, if you like, as well as the gateway feature.

So it's it's it's more of a visual cue to to to slow as well as the the softest the speed limit signs

themselves

The pedestrian signing to warn of the potential hazard of pedestrians crossing the road

A vehicle activated sign which would flash up to say you're going too fast basically if you are going too fast

and

lining surfacing upgrades so no no no raising of the carriageway or anything

Councillor Paul Evans - 1:00:32

like that nature. Sorry I'm fairly new to this planning game so that will require

a traffic regulation order to implement the reduced. Is there any conditions on

occupation of this site dependent on that TRO being in place.

Okay. So we could end up in a situation where we had occupation of this site but actually

there were no speed limit changes in place. And as a question, is there any kind of condition

that we could put in to say that the TRO must be in place ahead of occupation?

Officer - 1:01:16

I'd jump in. There is a condition attached requiring the highway works that were shown

on there to be undertaken and completed prior to occupation. The TRO and everything will

be a separate matter for highways to deal with under the Highway Act, but jump on Matthew's

case, but yeah, ultimately there is a condition there saying those works should be undertaken

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:01:38

prior to occupation. Matthew would like to add to that.

Officer - 1:01:43

Yeah, thank you, Councillor Evans, and through you, Chair, yes, just to follow what Martin

has correctly just said, the planning conditions cures the works that are proposed associated

with this.

A traffic regulation order is required.

It is separate to the planning control.

It's a separate regulatory process secured through the Highways Act.

In exceptional circumstances you might consider a grampian condition to secure

the outcome of that traffic regulation order but in this case we recommend that

you do not do that because the vehicle access, the vehicle visibility

displays are appropriate to the recorded 85th percentile speeds of vehicles

currently. There is therefore no recognised dependency upon the successful implementation

of the traffic regulation order. The success of the implementation of the traffic regulation

order cannot be guaranteed because it's subject to a separate consultation regime. It sits

outside planning control. It's very messy if you end up trying to do a Grampian -style

condition on a on a separate regulatory control mechanism like that so we would

Councillor Paul Evans - 1:03:04

strongly recommend not to not to do that in this instance but just just to follow

up that for my for my clarity that it stood despite the gateway features and

vehicle activation signs there is a chance that speed limits through that

section of the road as they approach the site will exceed be as they currently

are certainly in excess of the proposed speed of reductions until the TRO is going.

Thank you. It was fairly nerve -wracking up there, I must say, and I think a number of

Councillor Paul Evans - 1:03:40

us found it that way. Thank you. I had a follow -on question as well, if I may, sorry to add.

Martin, you talked about alternative funding sources for the mugga. The parish council

says that they've reached the statutory cap via the Folly View scheme on seal money. Is

that correct? So they've had their money from developments within the village and therefore

would need to fund any mugger out of that.

Officer - 1:04:07

No, I mean the Folly View development hasn't yet been permitted. We haven't issued the

section 106 issued a permission yet.

So the still money would usually be received

on commencement.

And the cap is I understand each financial year.

So if these two developments started

in different financial years,

then the cap would be different for each year.

The development of the Folly View one wouldn't prohibit

or prevent any money from this one being received

if they take part in different financial years.

But equally that they are still entitled to,

My understanding, as I said, is 15 % or the higher of 15 % or £100 per dwelling on the

electoral register, which would be about £50 ,000, I think.

So they are still entitled to a reasonable sum of money across the years, and they can

still apply for infrastructure improvements through SIL anyway as a separate process.

The 15 % just means they get it automatically if you don't have to make a claim for it.

They could still make a claim for SIL separately.

Councillor Paul Evans - 1:05:11

Thank you for that clarification.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:05:15

Councillor Nick Bridges - 1:05:18

Councillor Bridges. In case anyone at home doesn't know what a mugger is it's a

multi -use games area but my question is it relates to the sewage problem we've

got there I'm glad that the people can't occupy their houses until and until the

sewage problem is sorted but I'm struggling to find what the sewage

problem is because to do a new sewage treatment plant could take up to

eight years if it's a full capacity one so obviously smaller treatment

works faster. Do you have any idea the scale of the sewage problem and

Officer - 1:06:04

how long it would take to fix? Well that's what I said in trend war to investigating. My

My understanding is very often in Morton and Marsh some of the issue is there's no issue

with the waste getting to the treatment plants.

The problem is they've got capacity then and then it has to release water into water courses

which is one problem, of course it's pollution.

That's not the issue here from what I can see primarily.

The issue here is it's backing up before it gets to the sewage treatment works under the

railway bridge and various other areas and the same with the Folly View development.

The pipes are not necessarily having the capacity to deal with it.

At the moment we don't know whether it's a pumping issue or it's having a churn down

whether it's a pumping issue, whether it's service water getting into the foul treatment

pipe network which is causing overflowing of it which then causes the backup or whether

it's, but from what I understand it isn't actually just the waste itself that's causing

the problem, it's just the pipe network between houses in development and the water treatment

works.

So I don't think there's necessarily from what I understand an issue with the water

treatment work capacities for pure waste alone is the surface water that's getting into the

system that's causing the problem. And that's what they need to identify and look into.

And at the moment they haven't clarified what they need to do or what the extensive works

they're going to need to do to address that matter. But that's something that would be

addressed as part of the condition compliance process. Because until 7T water receive a

request to connect, that's when they have to start taking it. Because then they have

the statutory duty to connect and that's when they will have to sort out their processes

to make sure that there is the capacity there and it can be properly accommodated because

that's their statutory duty. Under covered under other legislation. And it's the same

problem. We've kind of just been through it with the appeal in morning marsh where that

issue arose and the planning inspector made it quite clear there that it's a statutory

duty to cover that under the legislation and its responsibility of the water company to

ensure that they meet their statutory requirements and statutory duties rather than a matter

of planning. So I mean we can put certain mechanisms in place to you know focus people's

minds and get timeframes and file drainage schemes in place but ultimately the responsibility

for ensuring the connexion and addressing the issue is for seven trench water. Regardless

of what we do, if we didn't put planning condition on it would still be seven trench water. It's

there's no pollution, that's their responsibility and their duty.

The conditions are just there to try and ease the process and focus people's minds in a way.

Any follow up?

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:08:47

Follow up question?

Follow up.

Councillor Nick Bridges - 1:08:51

Wait, what?

Only that we've got the risk of having perhaps a ghost estate there.

All these houses could be built and we could be waiting for several years afterwards.

So as long as you've addressed that issue, that's fine.

Thank you.

Officer - 1:09:12

Oh yeah, I mean the condition at the moment requires that.

That's why we've put it at the prior to commencement stage

because then that means rather than the developer just going on home and starting

and worrying about it later, it will focus their mind beforehand

and give them an idea of likely time frames for doing the treatment works.

So you don't then just get a half -built development later on.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:09:30

Thank you, Martin.

I don't see any more questions around the room.

In that case, before we go to a vote...

Can I ask a question?

Yeah, of course.

That's where we want to, David.

I'd like to invite you to comment.

We are taking notes of names to comment briefly and to the point on this application.

After that I will listen to potential amendments or go directly to the vote if somebody proposes

it.

Councillor David Fowles - 1:10:10

Can I speak?

Please.

Well, I remain unconvinced about the situation with 7 Trent.

It's not a criticism of 7 Trent, it's a criticism of government and this statutory requirement

that water companies have to allow connexions to their networks that are already under strain

with new development.

On page 62, there seems to be a number of contradictions.

On the one hand, under 1085 .3, with a view to better understanding how our network is

operating 7 Trends Undertaking a number of investigations, once those are completed and

if improvements are necessary, these will be undertaken in accordance with our investment

plans.

Further up the page, it says at 1085 .1, no investment is currently confirmed.

I think we should be putting down a marker to government, which is that I personally

don't want to sit in planning applications where we've got a situation where we know

there's a problem, particularly with foul water.

Our number one responsibility in government, local or national, is the health and wellbeing

and safety of our residents.

And I know from first -hand experience that this village suffers terribly from foul water

issues and I for one would now like to propose that we defer this until Thames

Water sorry to a seven trend that was a Freudian slip seven trends come back

with an answer to the questions posed. Councillor Bridges said what is the

problem the thing is we don't know what the problem is and yes we may well be

building these houses and they can't be occupied. So I'd like to put a proposal that we defer.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:11:55

If I may interject what you've just described isn't a planning concern for

this committee, we're discussing the application in front of us, not government policy. I sympathise

enormously.

Councillor David Fowles - 1:12:09

Well, Chairman, if this application in front of us, we have an outstanding problem with

regards to whether or not there is a, as Martin, who's probably our most experienced officer,

has identified, we don't know what the problem is yet, they're about to do some work to find

out what that problem is, why don't we defer until we get an answer? That's related to

this specific back planning application, not government, I have taken up this issue with

our MP saying when is this going to change? Because the networks are not fit for purpose,

and we have got a government target, but this specific application, this specific village,

we don't know the answer and we are about to potentially vote it through another 60

houses in a village that actually has got a network that doesn't work. So that's what

I'm asking, can we defer until we have got an answer? It's a simple question. If no one

wants to support it, at least I've cleared my conscience and asked the question.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:13:07

Is that... David, please put your light out. Are you making a formal proposal?

Yeah.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:13:15

Okay. Do we have a seconder to defer? I've got...

Can we take down the seconder in that case?

Officer - 1:13:34

I appreciate that the proposal has been seconded.

I just would add that the government are quite clear that planning needs to consider planning

matters and that where there are other regulatory regimes,

planning should not consider those.

In this case, the drainage issues are covered by a

separate regulatory regime.

And I would strongly advise members that it is not a valid

reason to defer this application whilst I completely understand

the thought and sentiment behind it.

If you defer this application with an open -ended deferral, then we will probably be looking at an appeal against

non -determination of this application that the council will then have to defend.

I don't think there is a defensible position for that if that's the reason the sole reason for deferral. So I really guard against

committee making a decision on that basis.

Councillor David Fowles - 1:14:37

This

district,

I'm the longest standing ward member here and representing two different wards and both

those wards have outstanding issues with water and particularly foul water with developments

and so on.

This is not acceptable.

If we're not allowed to defer it then I for one will not be voting for this application.

It's another way of dealing with it.

Okay, so I just want to make it absolutely crystal clear, I think this is wrong.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:15:08

David I think you've made your position very clear on the record. Thank you. Thank

you chairman. On the record.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:15:24

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:15:30

Councillor Julia Judd - 1:15:31

I completely and utterly sympathise with Councillor Fowle and Councillor Caul and anybody who

supports the proposal.

And I want to, but we can't.

And I also don't want to get this council in a situation

whereby we're up against an appeal which we know,

right now, we know we'd lose.

That is not what we're here to do.

We are here to support this planning committee

and decisions made by this council.

All of us are appalled by approving any application

that's going to have sewage flooding through.

are people's streets and it makes all of us very, very uncomfortable.

But we've got to be grown -ups here and we can only work within the rules that we have

given.

I believe that this case officer could not have done more work in coming up with conditions

to support, to protect the residents of Willacy and to enhance the value of this application.

We are up against an extremely difficult government attitude towards planning in the courts walls.

We all know that. All of us are uncomfortable with some of the decisions we're having to

make. And I think it would be disingenuous of me to just stand up and say, I don't like

the idea of it, so I'm not going to vote for it. I vote that we actually support the planning

offices recommendation to permit. I congratulate Willa C Parish Council. They've obviously

got an incredibly well informed and intelligent parish council who have put together their

arguments very well. I thank very much Highways for turning up and doing your due diligence

and explaining everything that you're doing. I don't think this council, Highways or Withersea

Parish Council or the representatives, the members for Withersea, Daryl Corr and Gina

Bloemfied could have done more. So I vote, I propose that we accept the officer's recommendation

to permit.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:17:58

Thank you, Chair.

This Council has declared a climate emergency and we are suffering the effects at the moment.

And the Council has policies which are green to the core.

I am therefore disappointed that we are not requiring that solar panels are required.

This site is next to an industrial estate and is in my opinion that we should not be

building houses next to such an industrial estate.

We're just inviting problems such as noise, dust, fumes, etc.

I appreciate the site is of a local plan but I think the plan is wrong in this aspect.

However as it is in the local plan I don't think we can refuse the application.

Also, I don't think we can refuse the application of highway grounds, given the comments and

recommendations of a highways officer who is our professional advisor on such matters.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:18:53

Thank you.

Thank you, Ray.

Next up is Darryl.

Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:18:59

Thank you, Chair.

All I was going to say was that many of the objections we've heard and received aren't

to housing in principle, but it's whether the supporting infrastructure is generally

ready to accommodate it. I think that's what Councillor Fowle has been saying. I'll let

some of you really to explore carefully because it's time and time again that we get to this

point where it's down to connectivity with Thames water or 7 Trent water. And it just

always seems to be a case of, well, we'll have to wait and see if we can. We can't promise

yet we'll have to look at it later once you approve I just it's just a crazy

situation we find ourselves in and I would like to thank the legal advice on

what counts the fouls put forward and I seconded so I think that was very

important you said that thank you and and to reiterate councillor Judts point

thank you very much Matthew for highways coming along today I think that's been

invaluable and also I think any future applications that have this sort of

difficult and unusual highway situation it's great it'd be very good that the

representative could be here like you've taken the time to come today so thank

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:20:15

you. Thank you very much indeed and first of all I've got

Councillor Nikki Ind - 1:20:21

Councillor End. Thank you chair not wishing to repeat all of those thanks to

people. As I completely sympathise with the residents of Willersley as a daughter of somebody

whose parents' house, not in Willersley, but in the district, has flooded twice. I absolutely

understand the impact that the lack of maintenance of infrastructure can have on people's lives.

But I was very concerned before Geraldine very kindly stepped in at our risk of non -determination

with this application.

We have already deferred it once.

And I think that the Grampian condition which has the case Officer Martin has put on there

based on that appeal is at good grounds for us to understand that that's what our inspectors

are looking at.

whilst I feel that our hands are really tied I think that there's not a lot we

Councillor Paul Evans - 1:21:28

can do about it. Thank you chair. Thank you to the previous colleagues for

speaking previously. I too won't reiterate. I would however like to call

out colleagues and thank colleagues from the Highways Department for their

diligent work in putting in some of the safety features that are now present in

this proposal. We all know it was a pretty hair -raising experience when we

went up there so it is encouraging to see those things so thank you. To echo I

think Daryl's point it would be very helpful where we have this kind of

scenario again that we could get such input from highways around the design

It may save us some meetings.

I'm deeply uncomfortable with this development on a number of fronts.

I still remain slightly nervous about the highway situation, recognising the work that has been done.

I'm also deeply concerned at the lack of facilities that the village may get from developments in the village as a whole.

I take on board fully Martin's points around the mechanism to do so.

but I do note that we are at risk of building little pockets of play areas

all over the place without having anything for youngsters, the youth, the

community to congregate around as a social area. Can't do anything about that

I suspect. The 7 Trent issue, the whole district has a problem with water,

with flooding. We are aware of that. I absolutely sympathise with Councillor

Fowles his point tonight I wish we could say sorry until you sort this out we

can't have houses but to Geraldine's point Councillor Judd's point to Nikki's

point we are hamstrung we cannot do anything about it and and reluctantly I

would be minded to have to support this application

Thank you.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:23:29

Thank you, Chair.

Condition 22, which I clearly have somewhat misread, is really at the heart of most of

the many of the objections.

It does say that a foul water drainage scheme has got to be submitted to and approved in

writing by the local planning authority, which is our team here, before the development even

starts. Now, it's the other way around with some developments. In order to start within

three years, you dig a hole in the ground and just before the three years are up and

you start at the development. But here, they're going to be racing to find a foul water draining

scheme and they've also got to demonstrate, in sub -paragraph three, that where they're

going to connect it to a public sewer, which of course they are, somehow they've got to

proved to us as the local planning authority that the additional foul

sewage can be accommodated within the public sewer system. I wouldn't mind

attending the moment and the meeting and the presentation where they demonstrate

that just to see how they can prove that their overtaxed and already overworked

sewage system can take this lot as well. And the final point of course this is an

unusual part of the district and they've got to deal with both Thames Water

putting the water in and 7 Trent taking it away. So thanks for all

concerned I will be supporting this.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:24:55

Councillor David Fowles - 1:24:57

David. I felt I ought to just come back following on from Councillor Judd's

comments which seemed to imply that I was criticising the case officer which

would be the furthest thing from my mind because I would never dream of doing

that with him. So if there's any suggestion, I was, I didn't imply it, what

I wanted to do was to air something and to use this application as an

opportunity of doing that, recognising that we've got both hands tied behind

our backs when it comes to water companies. And yes, how awful for the

residents of Willasee that they're doing with two water companies, not just one.

And it's very refreshing to see a representative from highways here and

and someone who gave us clear, concise answers to all our questions,

which I too am grateful for that.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had a representative from one of the water companies

present at every application so we could actually interrogate them?

There's something fundamentally wrong with the system.

We're all expressing in different ways that we've got concerns.

Meanwhile, we're obliged to acknowledge those concerns and go forward.

And I feel very strongly for the residents of Willeslie as a result of this.

and I won't alter my position in terms of voting against it. Thank you.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:26:13

Thank you David. Yeah, from my point of view, I am going to vote in line with the Office of

Recommendation. We defer this meeting for this application for highways work, which thank you

very much for our highways team, produced an excellent report. Also thank you to our officers

that we have to work within the legal framework despite our sympathies being with

or certainly against the water companies and with the community. I would like to commend

Councillor Jude's speech because I thought it was full of common sense and will take

us towards a vote in favour of this application.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:27:08

It's a small point. Have we taken on board all the comments from the town council to

do with the preoccupation conditions? I think we've taken on board 21, but have we taken

on board 22?

Absolutely everyone is taking into consideration.

Thank you.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:27:31

I believe that Councillor George already proposed we...

Chair, we have to take the first proposal.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:27:43

We need to take the deferral first and then we need to...

Take the first one first.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:27:45

We have to do the deferral first.

Yeah, we've just been informed we need to take the deferral first.

Darryl, of course, seconder.

So we vote on that motion.

So if you're in favour of deferral, it will be yes.

Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:28:15

If you're against the deferral, it will be no.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:28:17

Councillor Nick Bridges - 1:28:19

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:29:25

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:29:30

Do we have a implement?

And no will be to refuse.

Currently eight votes.

10 votes. Up to 10. So to permit we have 8 against to abstain 0. So we go with the opposite

recommendation on that application.

Thank you.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:30:24

Yeah, comfort break.

We've got one and a half hours.

If we are back in eight minutes.

Eight minutes.

22.

Thank you.

Right.

It's in 22.

Good.

Well.

Actually, it's only 10 minutes.

I know.

8 25/02687/FUL Land Parcel East of Willersey Business Park

I don't know how to describe it.

Actually.

9 26/00613/OUT Land to the East of Nostle Road

Okay.

I think we're all back in our places now.

So we're moving along in the schedule of applications to agenda item number nine, which is land to the east of

and the officer's recommendation is to permit.

Subject to no objections from biodiversity officers and any associated conditions, completion

of an S106 legal agreement covering the provision of affordable and self -built, custom -built

housing, biodiversity net gain, monitoring and financial contributions to secondary education,

age group 16 to 18, library services, school transport, bus stops and a travel plan.

We do have public speakers on this.

First we'll go to the officer to give a presentation.

Thank you just for update. We have received a further response from the Cotswold National Landscape Board, which is on page 8 onwards on the late pages.

They have raised an objection and consider the development to be major development in the A &B, but we've addressed those issues in the officer report, so there's nothing further I can add to that.

I will let you scan through it.

Officer - 1:32:34

A lot of it is technical legislation information,

so hopefully it's not too long to read through.

Officer - 1:35:07

Okay, thank you, Chair. I'll go through the PowerPoint slides. Everyone's ready. Application

site located on the eastern edge of the principal settlement of North Leech. The site's an agricultural

field located within the town's development boundary. It's allocated for residential development

in the local plan at the current time.

Just to highlight the area in green

is the conservation area and orange is the listed building.

So it's located quite a distance from any heritage assets.

It's outline application,

but the applicant has provided an indicative layout plan

just to give an indication of how housing

or the 50 dwellings could be incorporated on the site.

So this isn't fixed, but it just gives an impression

of how housing could fit in and also open space could be included within development

and road layout, et cetera. This plan shows in more detail potentially areas of green

space within the development and green infrastructure. So hopefully that highlights the balance between

built development and green space. This is a picture from Nosso Road looking eastwards

across the site. This was taken last week at the site visit. I took this because it's

most up -to -date photo of the site. It's quite overgrown in the last year or so, but it gives

an impression of the site looking out from an existing town. On the approach into the

town itself from the east along East End, the application sites in the distance on the

right behind the bank wall.

Existing housing to on the left of the road

is the recently completed Wixom Road,

Bassett Road development, which was granted permission

about 10 years ago and it's for 40 houses

on a slightly smaller site than what current proposal is.

Again, as we approach the town,

just put it in context with the site on the right.

Again, shows the site with existing housing on the left.

So you've already got the edge of settlement development

which will be visible in conjunction

with the proposed development.

There is a visual interconnectivity there already.

And looking northwards towards the application site

from East End with Nossel Road in the distance.

And looking outwards, eastwards from Nossel Road.

These were taken a couple of years ago on street view

so they're not completely up to date.

Existing housing to the south

which is like I say was approved about 10 years ago, it was completed a few years ago.

This is the affordable housing on the main road, east end, and you see on the approach

into the settlement at the moment in natural stone, so the development or developers looking

to replicate this style of development as you approach into the town. And again, looking

from the Eastington Road northwards across to the site, so you see the 40 house development

classic road, Rickson road. The post development would be in the field immediately just beyond

that. So again, you see the post development in conjunction with existing town development.

And rather than a stand alone isolated development in the countryside, it also sat down into

the valley so it wouldn't be seen against the skyline. So thank you.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:38:45

Okay. Thank you for that. I would at this point like to invite public speakers. I have

on my list from the town or parish council, Councillor Michael Seath. Mr. Seath, if you're

Whenever you're ready, you have three minutes to make your statement. Thank you.

You press the button. There we go. That's perfect.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. You've seen the strength

Town/Parish Council - 1:39:34

of community feeling in the over 60 objections received in your bundle. This committee regularly

considers far larger developments, but for us this is

a once -in -a -generation proposal that could dramatically and

irrevocably alter our town.

The Town Council does not oppose the principle of development

on this site.

Our concern is the scale of this proposal and its impact

on the landscape and public community.

We do not believe the applicants address these concerns

in any meaningful way.

I've now just two points I'd like to address.

First, if this application is granted, there will be a

permanent loss of landscape.

We note that Cotswold National Landscape disagrees with the applicant's conclusion that the landscape impact will be negligible.

They object to this development on several grounds in the letter 29th of June in your pack and recommend its refusal.

They cite breaches of the national planning policy framework in some detail and I commend their commentary to this committee.

The applicant assesses the impact of their design will reduce from moderate to negligible in 15 years once trees and hedges are established.

We disagree. You have seen the development to the south. It is nearly 10 years old.

The planting of trees and hedges on this estate has not softened its appearance.

The strategic housing land availability assessment for this site sets guidelines to make development

acceptable in landscape terms and requires the new housing should not extend beyond the

settlement hedge you've seen established by the estate to the south.

The applicant has not followed this and other points in the Schiller Act which are based

on independent assessments and merit significant weight.

My second point concerns loss of immunity, specifically drinking water, sewage and flood

risk. TEN's water in its email of 8th April warns of problems with capacity in the

water network potentially resulting in no water pressure for drinking water,

increase the flooding and an increase in the current levels of discharge of

untreated sewage into the river leach and as proposed to either preoccupation

or grand peering conditions relating to clean and foul water network upgrades

which we commend to this committee. In closing I'd like to raise this point the

background papers appear to place greater weight on

maximising housing numbers and the five -year land supply than

on issues relevant to this application.

And we ask you to obviously reason the decision based on the

issues relevant to this application.

We do not believe it is possible to permit this application and

ask you to send it back to the applicant for revision.

If, despite our concerns, you permit this application,

we ask you to impose the following conditions.

One, to reduce the impact on the landscape,

and then either the ground funeral preoccupation condition

is set out by Thames Water, including the condition

respecting the foul water network,

as per the previous application,

and the primary residence condition set out

by the applicant.

And finally, given the impact of this decision

on our community, we do ask that you articulate

the reasons for your decision so that it can be accurately

documented in official minutes

and communicated to our residents.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much indeed.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:42:29

On behalf of the applicant, we have Mr George Hudson.

Is he with us today?

Hello, Mr Hudson.

David?

I was just curious.

I thought we always had the speakers up together.

Councillor David Fowles - 1:42:58

Is there a change in policy? Is that just the way you have chosen to do it?

I don't see any difference David.

I was just curious.

Thanks.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:43:11

Mr Hudson, whenever you are ready, if you please start and we will set the timer for three minutes.

Applicant/Agent - 1:43:21

Whenever you are ready.

My name is George Hudson, a non -stide Pendry fellow of Harris Manchester College, Oxford,

and a long -standing volunteer responsible for the applicant's assets. Farmington is

an educational charity supporting schools and teaching, including, for example, providing

substantial funds to ensure that the roughly 160 staff affected by the recent closure of

of a nearby large school are treated properly and fairly.

I have looked after Farmington's North Leech land

for over 22 years.

Our development has been limited.

Church Farm, the conversion of redundant farm buildings

around the church, and at the town council's request,

the acquisition and restoration of the post -consorting

office when it became structurally unstable.

After the death of the postmaster,

I was asked to assume that responsibility,

giving me a close understanding of how essential

footfall is to the town's remaining small businesses,

the grocery store, baker, chemist, butchers, hotel,

inn, the Royal Mail sorting office and of course the

post office.

Housing numbers are not abstract, they mean people

and people keep these services alive.

At Church Farm, although we are not a housing charity

and retain the properties as an investment, we have

had 13 years of stable stewardship with no residents leaving except through death, far

lower than in general housing. When Farmington builds, it builds places people want to stay,

and that long -term stability is a value I believe we share with you. Turning to the

Nossel Road site, allocated at the same time as the smaller GCC site south of the road,

our first plan emulated the nine home checkers development at the western entrance to the

Town. Officers indicated a preference for a whole field scheme, making full use of the

allocation, supporting the wider housing strategy and ensuring the soft transition from countryside

to town. With their guidance, we undertook the extensive technical work that underpins

this outline application. Our objectives are a development that is beautifully designed

using local materials such as natural stone and my own preference, timber windows,

providing employment and economic benefit during construction,

offering homes for people with ties to the area and for those who choose to join the community

and above all, homes that are a joy to live in,

and potentially involving apprenticeships with financial support

enabling some apprentices to become the first occupants of the houses they have helped to

build. For economic sustainability, local employment, the maintenance of services and

the provision of homes, the numbers do matter. Farmington has shown through Church Farm its

commitment to architectural quality, high building standards and long -term community

stability. We hope the committee will accept the recommendation of the planning report

and commend this application for approval.

Thank you Mr Hudson. A couple of seconds over but it was good.

Okay, we're fine.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:46:46

The ward member is Councillor Tony Dale who is not with us today so we'll go past that.

There was a site inspection visit by members of this committee made to the site.

If I can start by saying unfortunately not that many people turned up, I'd like to thank

those who did and I'll be coming to you in due course and would ask you to in future,

if you're not going to attend a satisfaction briefing, please send your apologies so we

can start punctually.

I'm going to start with council in next to me.

Councillor Nikki Ind - 1:47:30

Thank you chair.

Yes, we attended the site visit.

It's a very clear field, very definitely on a bank.

You could see the bank going away.

Having looked at all the papers,

I suppose the thing that stood out for me

was I could see that the access would come off

of Nossel Road, so the sort of issues you may find

on the main road weren't there,

the traffic would go in that way.

The main thing I saw was that the fact that it went beyond

the line of the other development over the road,

which is something that's very clear

and has been brought up in our papers as well,

and objections.

applications. Obviously this is sort of an outline of how it could look. These aren't

the full applications so that you know the full layout but the outline of how it could

possibly look but for that number of houses clearly it would have to go beyond the line

of the building on the opposite the building on the opposite side of the road.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:48:40

Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:48:43

Thank you. Councillor Caw.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Martin, as well for joining us there. It was very informative

as well with having the plans showing us and also talking about the site opposite, on the

opposite side of East End, and that was 10 years old, and talking about some of the intention

from the developer on mirroring those terraces as you approach North Leach. However, I think

having you know being on the site became really clear just how prominent it is

within the landscape rising up from East End above Nossel Road. It's a big

it's a big site and it had a lot of quite rolling contours to it and dipping

and rising up so it was quite interesting to be actually on site

looking at that site thinking that's where those houses will be built going

up further, which when you looked on the other side, it's very different as well, which it

almost like gently slopes away from the side and not such a prominent site as you enter

North Leach from this direction.

I think one thing that struck me was definitely the site's relationship with the surrounding

countryside and obviously the wider Coxhald National Landscape.

So I think actually going there, it's important to see that context for us there.

but to clarify it's a very prominent site rising up

that you can't just see from these technical drawings

in front of us.

Thank you.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:50:21

Thank you.

Councillor Evans, I think you were there.

No. No.

It was just us, just me and Dan.

And myself, I was -

I'm gonna do this.

And of course, I was here.

I would, I think like Councillor Corr,

is quite a large site. It's quite a large site. I was a bit shocked at first when I

heard 55 houses on the site, but what impressed me, and I think Martin mentioned this, is

that directly underneath this site, this is another site built about 10 or 12 years ago,

I think, which got high identity, but it actually looked like being part of the village. So

So I think if again it's down to design,

that if that could be carried on,

I would not see it as a block on the landscape

with careful design consideration.

It is on the road leaving North Leech entrance

on Knossill Road, so there would be no entrance

onto the main road.

Yeah, I think it was well worth visiting the site to get an idea. When I look at the plans

now I can put those in place.

Darryl, do you have a...

Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:51:52

Sorry, Ian, just to, maybe for other members who weren't on the site visit, when you look

at the plan drawings from that direction as you go into North Leech, where the attenuation

ponds are, that, if I'm right to remember, the landscape almost dips down quite a bit.

So what I'm saying about it rising up, it's not rising up as you come into the village, it's rising up to the right hand side.

So as you come into the village here, this section actually does slip below the road to a degree.

Yeah, quite deep contours. I didn't want to mislead you into thinking that it's about, it's completely in your face when you come into the village,

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:52:33

it's not, it's up to the right hand side going up the hill in line with the Nossel Road.

Thank you, Dan. I'm going to turn over now to questions for our officer technical questions

on this case. David, can you see your hand up?

Councillor David Fowles - 1:52:48

I'm very interested in the comments made by people who attended the site visit because

obviously we're coming in from the east as Martin describes it, currently on the right -hand

It's just open countryside and then obviously you hit the, you hit

Norstal Way. So could I just get a better understanding, I mean whether it's Daryl or Martin, about the contour. You say that the attenuation

tank

is in a dip, but looking further up the site, is that actually on a rise, a hill, Martin?

If you look at whatever page it is where you've got the site plan,

page 193, 194, a top left hand corner, is it actually on the rise?

Because it is actually quite a steep slope, isn't it?

Yes, I mean, just a side cheque, the south -eastern part is the lowest part of the site,

it rises up gradually towards the kind of north -west, but it also goes, the northern bit is also,

the north -eastern corner is also slightly elevated as well.

but the highest part is like the north western part of the site and it slopes down into that

corner where the attenuation basin would be.

Which is level with the road.

I mean, Nusselt Road to the west is similar to that, it's level with the main road but

then rises up to the north so it's not inconsistent with the existing edge of settlement pattern

that you see with housing rising up slightly up the side of the valley.

Bear in mind the site is also allocated for housing

and the development local plan.

So it's already been established that the principle

Officer - 1:54:33

of introducing housing there is acceptable.

It's just a case of addressing or arising at a scheme

which is sympathetic and can enhance the appearance

into the settlement.

At the moment you have Nossel Road which kind of turns

its back onto the entrance into the town.

Whereas what we've tried to work with the developer here

is to try and come up with a scheme that actually fronts onto the road and creates a more attractive

entrance into the settlement.

I think the Bassett Road to the Dermot to the south has done that to a certain extent

as well.

So it's not a case that all development automatically harms the approach into the

settlement.

You can create a more attractive approach.

Councillor David Fowles - 1:55:11

I get that, but in terms of the landscaping, is that just indicative or is that the sort

of final thing?

because the top left hand corner where there seems to be no landscaping,

which would be seen from coming down the road,

is that something that we could talk to the developer about putting some further landscaping in the top to soften its impact?

Is that something that's possible or not?

At the moment, the majority of the site is a field,

but the northern part, north -western edge of the site is an area of woodland trees and undergrowth.

And that's shown on your plan, there's a coloured plan which shows the green infrastructure,

green landscaping areas that would likely be retained and additional planting would

also be introduced around the site.

This is only indicative in a guide as to what we've achieved.

It's only indicative, okay.

Yeah, so in terms of where, how things are going to work in terms of garden boundaries,

garden practises, orientation, landscaping, those are all matters that will be discussed

and these will be, the comments you're making now will be taken on board at reserve matter

stage if this is successful. So it's just a guide to show what can be accommodated.

Officer - 1:56:23

It's important it's not just going to be housing and nothing else. Clearly the site

is big enough to accommodate quite a reasonable amount of green infrastructure

Councillor David Fowles - 1:56:32

and landscaping so we're comfortable that in principle it can accommodate that.

Question number two, the road that runs through it has an ominous

ending to it at the top of the field. Is that suggesting that at some point

something could be happening to the eastern end of the site?

Is that just a...

It's a cul -de -sac at the moment,

but obviously it's got an opening onto the field, hasn't it?

There's that different coloured treatment at the end.

You've got the road and then there's...

What's happening at the end of that road?

It's indicative.

Just indicative, isn't it?

Yeah, it's indicative.

It would just provide the field access.

At the moment there's a gate there.

Officer - 1:57:10

As the files can remind, it's a tough red light when they're finished speaking.

At the moment there's a field gate there between the two fields, so all this would do would

be a continuation of enabling that access through the landowner to be able to continue

Councillor David Fowles - 1:57:25

the access into the field that they do at the moment.

The third question goes back to the type of questions I was asking before about some of

these contributions referred to on page 133.

the contribution of £63 ,918 to secondary education, what exactly is that?

Is that provision of places or what? I don't quite understand it.

63133. You've got 9 ,800 to library services and then there's

Officer - 1:58:00

63 ,918 to secondary education. Do you know what that is?

It would go to education infrastructure, so to provide either increased classroom space

or facilities at the local school to accommodate additional children arising from this development.

So they can provide additional school places or school infrastructure to accommodate.

Additional school places?

For 16 to 18 years?

Councillor David Fowles - 1:58:24

It's the infrastructure to accommodate the children that would arise from this development,

Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:58:31

Thank you chair. I appreciate this is an outline application when we've got an

indicative layout but the police have criticised the layout. When the

details come in for the layout will it be down to officers to decide or will it

to this committee?

Officer - 1:58:50

It would be major development. At the current moment in time, if members requested that

the reserve matters to come back to committee, then that would normally be the case. We would

bring it back. However, the national schema delegation is likely to come into place at

the end of October, which will limit what applications can come back to committee. And

unless it's a phased reserve matters application, I don't think there's any requirement to bring

reserve matters back to committee and that would be a national requirement but

at the moment it's kind of watched this space so but if you were minded at the

moment say you'd like a reserve matters come back we can take that in board but

I can't guarantee it would because the legislation may change the session go

Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:59:30

yeah yeah I think it's important that we do follow the advice of the police

because public safety is very important and if they've got comments on it we

should take them on board so if possible I think you should come back to this

committee. Second question relates to the comments by the ERS people on air

quality say no objection subject to conditions in the conditions in

plural. I've looked through the conditions I could only find one which

is possibly relevant to it which is condition 12 about travel plan. Is that

Officer - 2:00:08

one of the conditions they recommended and what is the other condition? I don't

Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:00:13

I know off the top of my head, to be honest with you.

The other question is, the Cotswolds National Landscape

has had quite a detailed comment on it.

And they're quite critical of a number of aspects of the plans.

And it says, we consider the proposal submitted

would not conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty

of the Cotswolds National Landscape.

And consequently, the application

does not accord with Cotswolds local plan policy, et cetera,

and paragraph 189 of the MPPF as well as other policies.

It said this represents a strong reason for refusal.

Do you agree with that?

Officer - 2:00:51

And if not, why not?

No, we've made a judgement which is set out in the report, which

clarifies why we consider it to be acceptable in landscape terms

and why the harm isn't sufficient to merit

refusal in this instance.

We have to weigh, if there is a harm,

then we have to weigh that against the benefits arising

from the development in any instance.

And in this instance, we don't think given it's allocated

in the local plan for housing,

it's butted on two sides by housing development,

one fairly recently completed.

And having regard to indicative plans that have been provided

it's context, it's gonna have a localised visual impact.

The primary impact is going to be from East End

from wider impact.

There is no real particular views of it

other than that photograph I showed earlier from the South

and which you see it in context with existing town development.

So in that respect, just because it's housing into the countryside doesn't in itself mean it's harmful.

If it's done well, it can have a positive effect on the town.

The town itself is located within the national landscape and contributes positively to it.

So there's no reason why you can't extend it and still contribute positively to the character and appearance of the national landscape.

So yes, it will come down to detailing in the end, but we consider in this instance

it's a fairly reasonable site for this level of development in relation to the town.

So I hope that helps your question.

Councillor Julia Judd - 2:02:19

Thank you very much. Julia, your question please.

Thank you, Chair.

Is this, I get the feeling that this is a victim of the tilted balance that we're up against.

And when the local plan is updated, it might have been a little bit more robust to take

the Cotswold National Landscape comments into account.

I mean, I see that it's not as though they're dead against it in principle, but the scale

of it is huge.

is that anything that we can you know North Leach is not exactly a huge place

itself so is that can we can we control the scale of it?

Officer - 2:03:10

Well the application is 50 dwellings the final design and size scale and

appearance of those dwellings will be determined at the reserve matters stage.

So I mean it's not the case that we're going to necessarily come support lots

of four or five bedroom houses, the condition attached also that says 80 % should be three

bed and under. So we are trying to get smaller units as well, which are more consistent with

the character of that end of the village, which is largely smaller units rather than

large detached houses. So yeah, in the context, I mean, it is a principal settlement. We have

taken on board our statutory duty to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the

character and appearance in the national landscape but in this instance we think it's not going

to be a level of harm that would outweigh the benefits arising from the proposal.

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:04:02

Thank you Julia.

Councillor Nikki Ind - 2:04:05

Councillor End.

Thank you Chair.

Just a couple of questions if I may about the Sheelagh and how we got to the numbers.

So I think in the Sheila we had 17 houses,

we've jumped to 50 houses.

Can you just confirm, did we recommend

that we could get more houses on there?

Was that as part of our discussions?

That's one question really.

Suppose the second question is,

and in the Sheila does it go beyond the build line

of the housing across the road?

Because that seems to be quite a topic

about where this build line is.

I looked at condition eight in these outline when we talk

about no dwelling being permitted

until confirmation has been provided and agreed in writing

to the LPA about the water network upgrades.

Is it at this point we should really have the grumpian

condition put in about, as we have done

with previous applications,

about whether the infrastructure can cope with this,

or is that something that comes at the next stage?

And last but not least, protecting the dark skies,

which the Cotswold National Landscape has brought up.

I can't see a condition for that.

I may be missing something,

but that is also one of my things.

It may be that some of these things

are what will come out in a full application.

But yeah, that's my questions.

Thank you, Martin.

Officer - 2:05:40

Thank you. Thank you. Yes, the Schlar report dates from 2021 when we had different housing

land supply requirements and weren't in the position we are now where we have to deliver

over a thousand houses per year. In addition, the MPPF is now far more focused on making

efficient use of land. So therefore, when we do have land available and we're going

to develop it, we should be making the most efficient use of it as we can, while still

and trying to ensure development is sensitive to its surroundings and its location.

So yes, the guide in the local plan and which was 2018 and the schlar are based on quite

kind of out -of -date information really and a more idealistic possibly position than we

are in today when we have to be more pragmatic.

In terms of going further eastwards beyond the Bassett Road development to the south,

I mean that seems to be rather an arbitrary line drawn through the middle of a field which

doesn't take any account of the topography or the existing defensible

boundaries around the field. Surely the point is we want a development that

responds to the field, this topography and the setting of the town, rather than

having an arbitrary line through the middle of a field which doesn't really

respond to that. So again the Bassett Road development to the south extended

further than Nusselt Road and it's a nice looking development I think. So I

go further eastwards than the Bassett Road development, as long as that development is

done in a sympathetic manner and enhances that approach into the town and creates more

of a defined entrance than you have at the moment.

So we think there is scope there, but the overall layout and design will ultimately

be reserve matters, as would light pollution in terms of dark skies.

We'd look at external lighting as part of that.

But again, it's bordered on two sides by existing housing in a town, so it's not distinct from

the settlement in that respect.

So in terms of light pollution, we don't think that's going to be harmful or

significantly harmful, which is the test. The water, the potential water requested a

water supply condition, which is what we've attached, so that's what we've, what

we've added as a condition. Was there something else? I'm sorry. I'd just also like to come back to

Councillor Bressington's query earlier about ERS air quality.

The two conditions were one was about bicycle storage.

That's something we deal with as part of reserve matters.

And the other one was about construction management plan

dealing with dust and things.

And we've got one of those in there.

So hopefully that answers your question in that respect.

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:08:19

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:08:22

Councillor Colvin. Thank you, Chair. I see that paragraph 3 .3,

this site is within the town's development boundary which we defined in our current local

plan which I think was adopted in 2018, six years ago. And at the time we sought 17 dwellings.

Do we have any new areas of land in the first questions in preparing the new local plan

which will be with us quite soon in the next draught?

Are we aware of any further possible development areas for North Leach?

If it's a case that we can't see anything yet until everything comes out at once, I'll

understand that.

but looking at it on the map,

it seems to me that if you're surrounded by AOMB,

it's pretty difficult to get any sites.

We've got one here that somehow or other

we agreed eight years ago.

Perhaps I could rephrase the question.

Would you, officers, agree that in principle,

it looks pretty difficult to find further development sites

beyond this one?

Officer - 2:09:34

Yes, Councillor Colman, I would agree.

And you were also right to say that the papers in relation to the local plan and potential

allocations will be with members at the end of this month.

But up until that point I'm afraid we're unable to make any comments about North Beach.

Thank you.

Councillor Paul Evans - 2:10:00

Thank you, Chair.

I noted town council comments on the provision of affordable housing and the

right amount and housing mix and I certainly welcome proposals for 80 % of

the dwellings to be three bed and under. Do we know how to have any

indication of what proportion of housing in this application are proposed to be

socially rented as opposed to shared ownership

or private ownership at this time.

Have you got it on there?

Sorry, I'm sorry.

Yeah, there is.

It is there, is it?

Okay.

10 .30.

Thank you.

It's eight social rent.

Okay.

And six affordable rent.

That's the mix recommended by the housing officer.

So that would be subject to discussion with you.

Sure, thank you.

My second question is I also note

and actively support the town council's comment

that they're keen to ensure that houses don't become holiday lets and are lived

in by people who want to become part of the community. I think we'd all

welcome that. Are there any conditions or mechanisms by which we can constrain and

put that constraint on either of this stage or the latest latter stages?

Officer - 2:11:16

No, essentially a holiday let is a dwelling. If somebody wants to let it out,

social rent, photo rent, holiday let, that's a matter for them.

Councillor Nick Bridges - 2:11:37

I'm just noticing that condition number 8, which is all about holding back until all these conditions are sorted.

Is that the same as a Grampian condition that Nicky was asking for?

Shall I rephrase that?

Councillor Minn asked for a Grampian condition to be imposed, but isn't that the same as

condition number eight?

Officer - 2:12:06

In a roundabout way, I mean, generally a Grampian condition is just requiring the landowner

applicant to do works on land outside the application site, but in this instance it's

just requiring the statutory undertaker to do works.

So it's not entirely.

It's just like asking the highway authority to undertake

highway works.

It wouldn't be necessarily.

I mean, whether it's a granting condition or not,

it meets the relevant tests, so.

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:12:35

I've got Councillor Fowle, then Councillor Caul.

Councillor David Fowles - 2:12:40

I just want to build on what Councillor Coleman said about the current local plan. On page

145 it says this site was identified under the current soon to be old local plan for

17 homes. What's the, I don't remember in terms of the latest iteration of the emerging

local plan how many houses we were expecting to have come out of North Leech

is this going a long way towards meeting that target that's question number one

the question number two there are 61 letters of objection which centre around

things like insufficient parking in the town in the marketplace concerns about

My favourite subject, the water, foul water system, provision of

GP surgery places, et cetera, et cetera.

All those we dealt with because this is only an outline planning

application when it comes back for full planning.

So it's sort of two questions.

What are we looking at in terms of an overall number

for North Leach now?

And secondly, all the concerns raised by residents about,

you know, basically the size of North Leach and the size of this scheme in relation to it and the pressure that's going to put on the town.

Is that all part and parcel of...

We've been here before with outline planning applications where you kind of... it's like a kind of Trojan's horse. You give an outline planning

application and it comes back under reserve matters, and I was just a bit concerned that there seemed to be an awful lot of...

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:14:27

if concerns about what's going to pressure on North Leach.

I will let your officer answer your questions, David.

Thank you.

Officer - 2:14:36

In terms of, I'm not aware of any non -strategic site

allocations for North Leach coming forward.

This site would be predominantly going

to be the main development site for North Leach,

as far as I'm aware.

But in terms of the town itself, 50 houses in the context of a town that has nearly 2 ,000

people is not considered to be disproportionate and it's a reasonable level of housing for

this particular settlement, especially since it's within walking cycling distance of the

town centre and offers reasonable access to a range of public services as well.

So it's a sustainable location for the development.

In terms of numbers itself, bearing in mind

looking at similar size settlements

in the current local plan period,

this town is significantly less than a number

of other principal settlements in terms of housing.

And also it has quite a number of facilities

and services within it.

So in that respect, we don't think 50 is disproportionate

or excessive for the town.

Issues of impact on town centre, the marketplace,

have been assessed as part of this application

and again we don't consider that to be the level of traffic that would be generated by

this development would have implications for parking capacity or significant adverse impact

on parking capacity in the town square, especially since this site is within walking and cycling

distance of the town centre and would provide parking on site that would negate the need

for people to park in the town centre anyway for long term other than possibly just stop

short periods to get a pint of milk or whatever. So in that respect no we don't

think this causes a significant level of traffic and extra impact on the town

centre and the parking within it and the level of housing overall is also

considered not to have a significant impact on the services and

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:16:33

infrastructure within the settlement as they currently stand. Thank you.

Thank you David.

Darryl.

Councillor Daryl Corps - 2:16:40

Martin, thank you.

Just for clarity really, just explain what parameters would be fixed if we were to grant

outline planning permission today and would the applicant come back with quite a degree

of flexibility when they return with the matters because obviously at the moment you've obviously

talked about the favouring the mirroring of the terraces on the existing

development to the west and obviously that attenuation pond and open space

area does currently on the map act as a nice buffer going into North Leach and

anything building up and that would probably go against all of the the

Officer - 2:17:24

conversation we've had about that and improving the approach into North Leach

The only thing that is fixed is access. So layout, scale, landscaping, appearance are

all matters for later on. But clearly applicants here today listening to your comments, the

reason this has come out is partly as a response to officers trying to get working with the

applicant to come up with a positive entrance into the settlement. They want to do that

as well. So I see a reason why we shouldn't come to a positive conclusion as part of those

discussions.

That's great to hear, thank you.

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:17:58

Thank you very much.

I think that's the last question on my list.

Open now to comments before we proceed to the vote.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:18:12

Councillor Colman.

Thank you, Chair.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:18:19

When I went for, just as an aside, when I went for training from the Planning Advisory

service under the LGA at an excellent place called Warwick University, as many of us or

others here have done. And I think perhaps it was also here. We were encouraged to refer

to this stage as debate rather than comment so as to focus our minds. So that's why I

stuck my hand up right away and said I'd like to propose that we accept the officer's recommendations.

And in doing so, I'll mention a couple of things I hope none more. One is it's a little

unusual that this is a trust -led application, which is encouraging in many ways, but it

will be important for the trust to ensure that it has the resources and

stamina to employ the right consultants and although it's not our business as

planners I hope that officers will bear that in mind so that we may get the best.

Secondly, I'd like to echo the point that as you come into the town if

this is built as shown, on the right first you'll see a terrace and on the

left you'll see a terrace that follows it. That is so much better than having

two terraces opposite each other which is stark. So again that proves to me some

thoughts gone into it. I see from paragraph 1023 that in the last 13 years

we've had 89 dwellings which is about seven per year and by the time this has

been sorted out and built and let it won't be much less than seven years from

now so that's encouraging but I think what really marks this out is that we

have as it says in paragraph 31, 1031, there are 31 households qualified for

affordable housing in North Leach and if the mix of those households, 20 of

those potentially, 20 of those in social and affordable rent and shared ownership

first homes might be able to be housed. I cannot remember the last time I saw

two -thirds of a housing list potentially cleared over such a small development.

This could be really important to North Leach. Remember North Leach has a really

small town. It's much smaller than Stratton, which is only a village, but it's got fantastic

facilities but it needs people who can walk to and from shops, to and from facilities.

It's a vibrant town and it's got a totally good bypass. So I'm really encouraged by this

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:20:37

and I thank the officers for bringing it forward. I urge members to support it for the reasons

I've given.

Thank you, Patrick. Councillor Joad.

Councillor Julia Judd - 2:20:43

Thank you, Chair. I'm encouraged by North Leech and Eastington town council's opening

statement to a very, very long and well considered list of implications on the application, which

is fantastic that so much scrutiny has gone into it at this stage because the developer

can take that forward and hopefully talk to the Council and work with them through all

those issues. But they do say they have no objection in principle. I do have concerns

about Cotswold National Landscape's point that this is the scale of it and these issues

will be beefed up as we go along. But obviously we are under a lot of pressure. We can't even

come up with 2 ,000 after the required 5 ,500 houses that need to be built in the Cotswolds.

That's not a guidance. That's what governments are telling us to do. I don't know what, I

mean, we're going unitary, so I don't really understand the full implications. I just know

that that's what we've got to do.

That there doesn't seem to be enough here against it

to say, to refuse this outline application today.

So I think we should support officer's recommendation

to approve and finger in the wind, fingers crossed,

which is lethal, that as things pan out down the line,

that it will be a beautiful development

to the enhancement of North Leach

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:22:26

and sympathetically done to the Council of National Landscape.

Julia, are you offering to second the proposal?

Councillor Julia Judd - 2:22:32

Oh, yes, absolutely.

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:22:36

Yes, sorry, I was actually thinking I was my...

Thank you.

Are there any other comments from the committee?

Then I think I'm going to ask to go to the vote, please.

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:23:03

9 is the number of Councillors.

Councillor van had to leave us for personal reasons, so I think 9 is the number we are

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:23:19

forward. Just a point I'm looking at the clock and we're coming up to our three

hour limit we're gonna probably gonna need to extend if we're going to finish

the next time I apologise not limits on planning we're gonna be here till

midnight

10 25/02443/FUL Land to the West of Fosseway Farm

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:23:51

in that case we've recorded the vote and I'm going to go on to agenda item number

Ten

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:24:51

Okay.

today's agenda. It's land to the west of Fosse Way Farm. Our case officer, we've had a substitute.

And I can welcome Rebecca McAndrew to the table. World member is Councillor Daryl Corr.

I would like to point out that on the recommendation is to permit and there's an updated recommendation

and the updated recommendation is permit subject to conditions.

This replaces what you've got on your schedule in front of you.

Is there any questions about that?

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:26:11

Councillor David Fowles - 2:26:12

David, you have just thrown that at us, but is there something where this is written down?

You are going to explain what the conditions are?

Rebecca is going to explain as part of her introduction to the application.

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:26:28

Thank you.

I think now we go on to the officer's presentation.

Officer - 2:26:37

As you were just advised, before I commence my full presentation, I need to inform you

about an amendment to the proposed recommendation

for this application.

So the original highways comments that we received

requested a travel plan and monitoring

and a section 106 to cover that.

However, we've received updated highways comments

fairly recently last week.

And these are detailed in the additional representations

which have been circulated.

So highways, they don't explicitly say this

in the comments, but by omission,

they do not now require travel plan

or section 106 for this development.

This is reasonable to us,

given that it's a relatively small scale,

10 dwelling development.

And therefore the amended recommendation

is to permit subject to condition.

So no longer a section 106,

just a straightforward recommendation

of permit subject to condition.

So I hope that explains it.

Thank you.

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:27:52

Yeah, thank you very much indeed.

Officer - 2:28:09

Okay, thank you.

So the application relates to land to the west of Fosway farm stow road molten in the marsh and the application

site extends to around

0.8 hectares and is located on the western edge of Morton in the marsh

immediately adjacent to but outside the defined settlement boundary

the site which is here is

currently undeveloped and sits between

existing development on the open countryside

To the east of the recently constructed Aldi supermarket and the Esmea Gardens care home,

to the north the recreational uses included a multifunctional sports facility and bowls club

with residential properties beyond that and to the south and west site adjoins agricultural land and

open countryside. The site lies within the Cotswolds national landscape and is enclosed

by existing hedgerows and tree belts,

with a public footpath running along the western boundary,

which forms part of the monarch's way.

And this is therefore an edge of settlement site,

which is closely related to the existing development

settlement, but remains within a sensitive landscape setting.

So if I move on now to show you the proposed layout,

the proposals for the construction of 10 single storey,

three bedroom properties, together with access,

parking, landscaping and associated infrastructure.

The development is a low density form with vehicular access taken from the existing highway

network which serves the adjacent Keer, Holman, Aldi store and each dwelling would benefit

from private amenity space and parking provision.

The layout has been designed to respond to its surroundings by retaining important landscape

features so you can see the vegetation boundaries around the edges and public

open space there and respecting neighbouring uses and you can see the

relationship there with the adjacent care home and this would create a

gradual transition between the existing built form of Moreton in the

Marsh and the open countryside beyond. Existing trees and

would be retained where possible,

and this would be supplemented by additional planting.

The site also benefits with good accessibility,

being within walking distance of local facilities,

bus stops in the town centre,

whilst retaining the existing public footpath connexion

along the western boundary of the site.

An overall layout would respond positively

to its edge of settlement location.

Now we'll turn to the elevations and designs.

The development comprises, as I said,

of 10 detached bungalows.

The single storey dwellings reflect

the sensitivity of the site.

They would minimise the visual impact

on the natural landscape and neighbouring properties.

In terms of appearance, it draws on

the local Cotswold character with stone finishes,

traditional detailing such as chimneys.

And the design seeks to create

a locally distinctive development

that would reflect the principles

of the Cotswold design guide.

And it seeks to provide an appropriate transition

between the settlement edge and the countryside.

And conditions are also recommended,

requiring approval of sewn samples in detail

and to ensure a high quality finish.

So overall, we consider the scale appearance

and materials to be appropriate for this location.

So turn to look at some photos now.

So you can see there that this photo is taken looking

across the application site towards the northern boundary.

Members can see the site is currently open grassland

whilst also benefiting from a strong landscaped edge

comprising of trees and hedgerow planting.

And these landscape features, as I said earlier,

would be retained with possible enhancements

as part of the development proposals.

And the image demonstrates how the site is relative

if the world contained by existing vegetation,

which would help limit wider views.

And the retained landscape and an additional planter

would help soften the appeal to the proposed development

and maintain a landscaped edge to the settlement.

And the public right away is along the far boundary

there that you can see in the future

and that in the distance and this forms part

of the monarch's way and that would remain

to maintain pedestrian connectivity between the town centre

and the wider countryside.

So this photo now shows the proposed access

to the site of the care home.

You can see the care home there immediate to the right.

The access would utilise the existing

highways infrastructure shared from the care home

and old development which has been constructed recently

before entering the application site itself.

If you look ahead in the photo,

you can see the main body of the site beyond that.

Final photos taken from the application site,

looking eastwards back towards the care home.

You can see the care home,

which forms the principal neighbouring building to the site.

The image helps show the relationship

between the existing building

and the proposed development area.

And the photo demonstrates how the sites,

It's immediately alongside the existing development

and forms part of the transition

between the settlement edge and the countryside.

The open land in the foreground is the area

where some of the bungalows would be constructed.

And given that all the proposed dwellings

are single storey in form,

they would be substantially lower in scale

than the adjacent care home.

Appropriate separation distances

together with boundary treatments

have been incorporated into the scheme

and officers therefore satisfied

that an acceptable relationship would be maintained

between the proposed developments

and the neighbouring Kehoe

while also providing a suitable living environment

for future residents.

So to conclude, the proposal seeks permission

for 10 single -storey bungalows on a site located adjacent

to the existing built -up edge of Moreton in Marsh.

As the photographs have demonstrated,

the site is closely related to existing development,

including the Kehoe and Aldi,

whilst also benefiting from existing landscaping

and boundary vegetation that would help contain the site

within the wider landscape.

The proposed development has been designed

as a low density single storey scheme

with landscaping and design measures

intended to integrate the development of surroundings

and provide a soft transition between the settlement edge

and adjoining countryside.

members therefore asked to consider the application before them with the

officer recommendation being to permit the development subject to the condition

set out in the report thank you

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:35:29

Thank you very much indeed. We do have public speakers on this. I think that Eileen at the

minutes which will will time you. If you press the button the little red light

should come on. That's perfect and you can start whenever you like. Thank you.

I'm Eileen Viviani, Mortley Marsh Town Council. I'll confine my comments from

the Town Council in respect of this application to three particular points.

Town/Parish Council - 2:36:19

highways, water and the protection offered by the MPPF to the Cotswold National Landscape.

The Highway Authority concludes there would not be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or a severe impact on congestion.

Traffic issues in Moreton in Marsh are well documented and Moreton is often gridlocked.

Queuing for long periods is a regular occurrence. Photographic evidence is very clear for all to see.

The Highways appreciation of this application does not acknowledge the existing severe congestion problem in Morton and to put it simply

Whilst the additional traffic from this development may not be regarded as severe in itself

The Highways appraisal ignores reality that Morton is already severely congested

There will be issues of traffic congestion on the A429

There will be difficulties for those trying to access the Aldi and the care home and for anyone else

regularly trying to reach their home or business. The recent Planning Inquiry

Appeal decision reference 600 2934 dated the 5th of June 26 made specific

reference to water and the planning conditions applicable to developments in

Moreton in Marsh. The content of the appeal decision is up to date and

specific to Moreton. It is relevant and as such it cannot and should not be

ignored. Paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the decision note explain the position in

respect of Thames Water, the Environment Agency and upgrade works required. The

uncertainty and timing of the capacity of the proposed upgrades is still to be

determined and a lack of objection from Thames Water and the EA is contingent on

the upgrade works occurring. The Planning Authority is aware of the appeal but

The case to permit this application

omits three very specific water preoccupation conditions,

16, 17, 18 of the appeal.

These conditions relate to foul water and sewage network

upgrades and water demand.

And I respectfully suggest these conditions

be considered and replicated in full today

as a matter of urgency.

Surprisingly, the case made to this committee with regard

of the MPPF paragraph 11 makes no reference to 11D in the context of the

provision of affordable housing and the protected Cotswold national landscape.

11D says that the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and

demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the

framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies

directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land,

securing well -designed places and providing affordable homes individually or in combination.

Given the shortfall in water -related infrastructure, is the Cotswold National Landscape in Morton an effective use of land and location for development?

This development may not be regarded as major, but has the impact of this market housing?

If you'd start to wrap up now, please.

Yes, I will. Okay, I'll go for this bit.

can the harm of the development be regarded as limited and without the

inclusion of affordable housing can it be regarded as a benefit? No, it is a harm.

There are no demonstrable benefits of the market housing scheme built on the

protected Cotswold landscape and the case to permit this development needs

closer examination. Thank you.

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:39:46

We could call for Mr. Dale Radford on behalf of the applicant stroke agent.

Dale, if you take a seat, this one here.

Dale, yeah, if you press that button next to you, you've got red light.

You've got three minutes.

Take your time.

And we'll start when you start.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members.

Applicant/Agent - 2:40:20

My name is Dale and I appear today on behalf of Aspect Homes in support of your officer's

professional recommendation to approve this application.

Firstly, I'd like to thank the case officer and the council's planning department for

the constructive and professional way in which this application has been progressed.

Throughout the process we have worked collaboratively to respond to comments,

refine the proposal and address the matters raised by our officers and

technical consultees. This is a proposal for 10 high quality bungalows, a

specialist form of housing that is increasingly needed but too rarely

delivered. The low density layout, generous landscaping and use of locally

appropriate materials have all been carefully designed to provide a

sensitive transition between the existing settlements and the surrounding landscape.

Members will be aware that the council's current housing land supply position forms an important

part of the planning context against which this application has been assessed.

As the case officer explains, this requires the proposal to be considered through the

planning balance on its individual planning merits.

That does not mean every proposal should be approved.

Rather, it requires members to consider whether the impact identified or amount to a strong

reason for refusing planning permission. Having undertaken that assessment, including the

site visit, your officer has concluded that whilst the proposal gives rise to some localised

impacts, those impacts are limited and outweighed by the significant public benefits the scheme

would deliver. Although the site lies within the Cotswold National Landscape, it sits immediately

adjacent to the settlement boundary of Moreton in Marsh in a highly sustainable location.

Residents would be within easy walking distance of shops, healthcare, public transport and other everyday services,

whilst also benefiting from direct access to the surrounding countryside via the retained and enhanced public right of way.

The national landscape has quite rightly been a key consideration throughout the assessment.

However, the Council's officer concluded that the site is well contained by existing development

and that landscape and visual effects would be localised and acceptable.

We agree with the same conclusion.

We have come to the same conclusion.

Importantly, every technical aspect of this proposal

has been rigorously assessed by your specialist officers

and statutory consultees

with no technical objections remaining.

Matters relating to highways, drainage, landscape,

ecology, trees, residential amenity,

and environmental health have all been carefully considered

and where comments have been raised,

we have worked positively with officers to address them.

The recommendation before you is the outcome of a thorough, balanced and evidence -led planning

assessment.

It concludes that the proposal would deliver a much needed specialist form of housing in

a highly sustainable location, enhances biodiversity, improves access to the surrounding countryside

and whilst giving rise to some localised impacts, delivers public benefits that clearly outweigh

them.

For those reasons, we respectfully invite you to place confidence in your office's

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:43:29

Professional wind up now, please support a recommendation and grant planning permission. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much indeed

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:43:35

The board member is council Darl core

doubt if you wouldn't mind once again explaining the reasons why

You won't be taking part in the debate

Ward Member - 2:43:52

As it as a declaration of interest and then we'll start your time after that

Yes, of course, Ian. I think it will become clear from what I'm about to say as the Ward Member

the reason why I'll be leaving the room and leaving the rest of the Planning Committee to debate and to vote on this application.

I've also, back in December, I was invited by one of the Care Home residents' wife to visit the Care Home,

which that was back in December now.

So she did show me around the care home facility.

I didn't go onto this planning application site,

but I was able to look out from the

Esme Gardens care home onto the site.

Ward Member - 2:44:40

Thank you.

Good afternoon again, just for the benefit of members

who may not know the site particularly well,

I thought it would be helpful to give some,

provide some local context.

As we've heard from our office report,

this application sits on the western side of Mortimer Marsh,

immediately behind Aldi and to the rear

of Esme Gardens nursing home.

As we've heard, access has taken off the congested

and very busy A429, the Fosway, and that is one

of the busiest approaches into Mortimer Marsh.

This junction already serves Aldi and the nursing home and directly opposite the new Spitfire Homes development, which is currently under construction.

We also have an application coming in for a hotel just a little bit further up the road adjacent to the garden centre.

So this is not an isolated site. This part of Mortonsiek is already changing rapidly and seeing a considerable increase in traffic, turning movements and pressure on local infrastructure.

There's also a very well used public footpath running along the rear of the site as we've heard.

This leads up towards Sessomcote and Longborough and is in many ways the gateway into the Cotswold National landscape from Moreton on foot.

I also have real concerns about the relationship between Esmeer Gardens nursing home.

Parking is very much already under pressure.

Only recently I counted 10 cars parked along the approach road to Esmeer.

With vehicles double parked in places, that was when the home was only half occupied.

And the access point from Aldi onto the Fosse Way, you're always queuing up to get out there.

I'm also concerned about the additional traffic passing immediately alongside a home that cares for some of our most vulnerable residents, including those receiving end of life care.

In fact the road would be going right past the edge of this building. That relationship just feels too tight for me.

Residents have rightly pointed out this site lies beyond the development boundary and

importantly the officers report itself confirms that the site falls within open countryside and that

proposal is contrary to local plan policy DS4.

The report then says that conflict is limited because the site adjoins Morton and is considered sustainable.

I understand that argument, but I'm not convinced we should give it that level of weight

Because this is not just any field on the edge of town this site lies within the Cotswold National Landscape

We have a statutory duty to seek to conserve and enhance its natural beauty

This is not a footnote and it should weigh heavily in the minds of the committee today

Members should also note that the proposal provides no affordable housing whatsoever

at a time when affordability is a major issue in Moreton and across the North

Cotswolds as we constantly hear in this committee. That'd be very difficult for

many local people to understand. So when you put it all together the BCA 49, the

shared access, the cognitive development in this part of Moreton, the important

public footpath, the acknowledged conflict with policy DS4, the site's location

within the Cotswold national landscape and the concerns relating to Esme Gardens,

lack of affordable housing, I find it very difficult

to support this application as it stands.

At the very least, I would strongly urge members

to undertake a site visit before reaching a final decision.

We've had site visits for applications such as Willers -Lee

for highways matters, and this surely warrants one too.

So some places just simply need to be seen on the ground.

And in my view, this is one of them.

We do need to ask whether a Gloucester County Council

highways officers actually visited the site again

in person, if not, could one be undertaken before any decision is made? Given the

complexity and sensitivity of this location, I believe that will be

extremely valuable. So for those reasons, I'm not persuaded the Planning

Balance supports approval today, which is why I'll be leaving the debate and not

taking part, and there is just demonstrably no clear benefit to the

Cotswolds from this application. While the harm is plain to see, if members

approve it they do risk sending a very clear message to residents that the

development in the Cotswold National Landscape in Morton is completely

acceptable even where the public benefit is simply not there. So at the least I

believe members should take a site visit and if you are minded to approve this

application I really would request that conditions are put in place to limit the

building single -storey status in this application and to keep those at single

level bungalows. But just to reiterate there is no affordable housing, it sits

outside the development boundary, it's an open countryside and the office report

actually confirms that it conflicts with local plan policy DS4 and it sits

with a national landscape where we have a duty to conserve and

enhance its natural beauty. And there are real genuine concerns about highways,

parking and access especially next to a care home. Thank you very much.

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:49:48

That's probably quite clear why I'll be leaving the panel for their debate.

Thank you Councillor. I will now I wait to find out and leave the room. Are there

Any technical questions specific to this application?

David was first in there.

Oh my gosh, can I keep up?

David, please go ahead.

First, first, Chairman.

Councillor David Fowles - 2:50:22

On previous applications, we've had situations

at the end of the meeting where members have left,

because they've got other commitments.

We all know why Council of Cores left the room.

But could you just explain to our visitors here that two other

members obviously left and that we have a quorum of three,

I think it is.

So if I was sitting here as the applicant or an objector,

I'd be a little bit confused that people are disappearing.

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:50:54

Could you possibly clarify that?

Thank you, Dave.

Yeah, indeed. We had a couple of councillors have left us because of private issues, one medical.

Darryl Core, Councillor Core has left us because he's got a declared interest in this case.

So we have what's called a quorum of three councillors.

We've currently got one, two, three, four, five, six, seven.

Councillor David Fowles - 2:51:33

So we are qualified and able to come to a decision this evening.

Question.

I've got two questions really.

One is on page 202 under other representations.

There are 15 third party representations and one petition.

I just wondered, with 75 names on it, I can't find the petition, but I wondered whether

the petition is about one specific item or was it a collective petition signed about

a number of different things.

Could the case officer just clarify what the petition actually said?

Councillor David Fowles - 2:52:12

I wonder whether the things that are listed are from the 15 third parties or whether it

the 15 third parties and the petitioner.

I just wanted to know whether the petitioners,

normally petitioners are focused on one thing.

I just was wondering if you could clarify that.

Officer - 2:52:24

If you bear with me a minute, I'll just cheque.

Councillor David Fowles - 2:52:30

More to do with while you're checking,

to do with protocol, if we wanted to propose a site visit,

which was the suggestion from the ward member,

at what point do we do that?

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:52:45

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:53:06

in the normal way it can be done.

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:53:14

After questions, if somebody wants to propose a site visit, we can find a seconder, we will

vote on that.

In debate, in comments.

First of all, questions for the officer specific to this case.

I think next we've got Patrick.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:53:37

Thank you, Chair. I'm still looking to find somebody who lost money building dwellings

in the Cotswolds. I haven't found anyone yet. I'm looking at paragraph 1070, which identifies

why there's 10 dwellings and not 11 or 12, because we require affordable housing once

you get to 11. Actually, I think that's a government requirement. That's a quick side

question really, is it not in fact the government that says we can only demand. So that's the

first question, is it the government's requirement that we have to wait until we get to 11? And

the second question, it relates to the following paragraph. Who submitted the financial, who

compiled the financial viability assessment and who independently reviewed it on our behalf?

Was the data supplied adequate because that sentence,

adding presumably one or two in effect,

the sentence that says the policy compliance scenario

would result in a substantial deficit.

I mean, there's clearly room on the site for a couple more,

but how on earth can that be the case?

Can the numbers be supplied?

I've got a whole load of questions.

Who on earth has done this assessment and said,

oh no, you're going to lose money if you build 12.

The two of them are rented. I can't believe it.

So I'd like to have, if necessary,

in writing after the meeting, to be honest.

It's just a staggering statement.

Officer - 2:55:10

Okay, thanks. Yeah, so the applicant

undertook the viability assessment

and then it was submitted to us

and then an independent assessor assessed that on our behalf and agreed with the findings of that,

but we would be able to provide you with a copy of that after the committee if you'd like to see it.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:55:41

Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:55:47

Councillor Bassington, you are next up please.

Thank you.

Could somebody tell me where Aldi is?

I am looking at the planning layout.

It is very difficult to read because it is quite small.

Where is Aldi?

In future, could we have a location plan when we get information?

I didn't know where this was.

We had a location plan shown on there, which is great, but not in the pack.

So in future, can we have location plans, please?

My question is, my other question is, have the owners of the care home commented on the

application?

Because obviously it affects their residents.

Have they commented on it?

Officer - 2:56:47

I will look that up as well. Thank you.

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:57:09

Councillor Paul Evans - 2:57:13

Thank you, Chair. To follow on from Councillor Coleman's excellent observation, on paragraph

1070, I note that the second sentence in that paragraph says that within designated rural

areas such as the national landscape, a lower threshold of six or more dwellings applies.

I thought we were in the national landscape here and I'm therefore questioning why this

has 11 for affordable housing where that policy says lower threshold of six in the national

landscape.

I have a follow on, a second question as well if I can.

Officer - 2:57:55

So yeah, the threshold for affordable housing in this area is six and obviously the scheme

for ten units and that's why the applicant undertook a viability scheme

to show that assessment to show that the scheme wasn't viable to provide that

Councillor Paul Evans - 2:58:19

requirement on this site. I understand that but we have a policy that says a

lower threshold of six or more dwellings and yet we have none here. I'm just a

little concerned that we're missing an opportunity to put much -needed affordable

housing into a site with what looks like plenty of space to build on.

And as Councillor Coleman absolutely says, I've never met anybody building houses in

the consoles who's lost money.

So I am questioning the fact that we have zero affordable housing when in fact our policy

says we should on that.

The second...

Officer - 2:59:01

that if I may so the situation is is that yes under normal circumstances we

would expect this development to provide affordable housing however the

viability that was being that was submitted with the application by the

applicant suggested that for various reasons it was not viable on this site

to provide affordable housing so that is the exception now we as Rebecca said

then took our own independent professional advice from Aspen or Verdi to look and critique

the applicant's viability assessment and they have found that they have agreed that there

is a viability gap here that means that there is good reason why this particular site is

unable to provide the level of affordable housing.

Councillor Paul Evans - 3:00:00

I understand that.

I am just very disappointed to see no affordable housing

because it looks like you probably get quite a few

more dwellings onto this site that might make it more viable.

That was the point I wanted to make.

There's considerable barriers, the density is quite low,

there's land behind the buildings.

I just find it very strange that there is no affordable housing in here.

and I'm no expert on this and clearly others are.

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:00:28

I apologise, maybe you could save that for your comments.

Councillor Paul Evans - 3:00:34

Thank you, my second question was when we looked at the egress,

the access into this site, it looked very narrow.

Has that been measured and are we confident that that is suitable for,

for example, a vehicle coming in and a vehicle coming out,

Given how proximate that road will be to the existing care home

With that comment in mind I would support David's proposal for a site visit to go

Officer - 3:01:06

I've been out on site and I didn't personally measure it

I don't know what the previous case officer did so I can't confirm either way on that but the highways

have confirmed that they're happy with that approach,

and we have to go on the basis of their advice.

Councillor Paul Evans - 3:01:24

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:01:33

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:01:37

Yes, of course. I think a response, please, from you.

the

Officer - 3:01:48

From you. Yeah

Jerry please go ahead

Thank you. Hope haven't cut short your questions. That's right. But I have found the petition in answer to Councillor Foles

Comment so I can let you know that the petition organiser

Was somebody who lives in Morton Lodge, Baughton Road

and

They have said that

They object to the application under the grounds of nuisance and disturbance to vulnerable

neighbours who live in a therapeutic environment, so obviously the care home adjacent to this

site.

Safety to staff and vulnerable residents who must use the site access road and the encroachment

of uses to a site within the OMB outside the settlement boundary.

Applications to develop this site have been refused twice before with the proposed plans

Breaking the development line as outlined in the current adopted local plan

the preparation summary

For the Morton in Marsh neighbourhood plan proposes that this development line protecting the settlement should remain and as such

There the recommendation should be one of refusal and that's the petition headline with the 75 names

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:03:09

Okay, Councillor Inge

I've got you both down.

Councillor David Fowles - 3:03:14

An observation, and it's certainly not a criticism, but given that it's a petition, and I know there are certain rules about petitions when they're submitted to Council, it would have been helpful to have had that in the report.

but I do recognise what the officer said. I do recognise if I could finish, I do recognise that the officer said she has come to this report late.

So I don't imply any criticism. Just thinking it would be helpful

going forward.

Yeah, I think you could save that for your comments.

Mr Long questions. Thank you.

Councillor Nikki Ind - 3:03:52

Councillor. Thank you chair. Yeah, a couple of things having heard all the representations.

Highways again I'm a little bit perturbed as to whether we know whether someone has attended on site the highways.

I am very aware of the traffic situation in Morton and how everything can come to a standstill very quickly.

It doesn't sound like very many houses it talks about six traffic movements.

However, I would be interested to know that access, if highways have been on site, if

they've seen it, I would just like to understand that more.

I think I would, so my question is, do we know if the highways manager has attended

or a highways person has attended the site?

My second question is, and that revolves around not only that site but the cumulative effect that these small developments and larger developments have on the highway in total.

My second question is around water. I can't see a condition about water and

this was raised by the town council so I might be missing something but should we

be having some sort of condition in there about in the same way as we've got

with the other others about occupation and making sure that you know

development doesn't start before we know that the infrastructure is there and

thirdly I think I would support a site visit I am concerned that there's no

affordable housing I absolutely welcome bungalows but I don't understand why

there's no we need affordable housing for our older residents.

comments rather than questions.

So, yeah, okay, well.

You can come to that in a moment, Nicky.

Okay, no worries.

Officer - 3:05:54

So, if I may come back quickly on some of those points,

because again, I've happened to find the Highways comments.

Unfortunately, they were by Matthew Jobs, so it's pretty good he's moved on.

But I have to confirm that there is nothing in his representation to us

that confirms the tea has visited the site.

So I can't say one way or the other, I'm afraid.

Second point, just quickly, in relation to foul water

capacity, there is a condition, condition 13,

which unfortunately straddles two pages, 219 and 220.

So it's difficult to pinpoint.

But there is one proposed.

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:06:39

Thank you.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 3:06:44

Okay, Councillor Colman, you're next up.

Chair, a few minutes ago, somebody, did I hear somebody mention the Morton in Marsh

Neighbourhood Development Plan? Because I didn't spot a reference to it in the papers.

I may be getting tired, I think, but is it within the Morton in Marsh boundary? I think

it is town council boundary and and this the neighbourhood development plan what

stage what stage has it reached has it been adopted is it for being prepared or

did I just miss here

Officer - 3:07:18

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:07:22

chair again if we may just cheque that inflation thank you we're checking in

detail at the moment Patrick. Thank you.

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:07:32

Officer - 3:07:33

Shall I just come back and explain, come back to the question about the name, the

care home and whether they commented in the meantime. Okay, so I've double -checked

and two residents of the care home have sent in comments but not actually the

care home themselves and one relative is somebody who lives in the care home and

And I just looked through it and they cover the breadth of issues that have been raised,

not specifically just one issue, everything that's been raised already.

Thank you.

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:08:10

David, I've still got your name here.

Councillor David Fowles - 3:08:18

Do you have another question at this moment?

It was one that came from...

I think it's there from the previous matter.

The item I was going to talk about was you said to deal with it under comments, so I'll deal with it under comments.

I personally think we should move to comments.

I think there's a pretty clear direction coming from this.

Do we have any more questions?

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:08:49

In that case we're going to move over to comments.

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:08:56

David, we're still working on one answer, we're going to come back to, was it about

the local plan?

Officer - 3:09:06

Yeah, it was about, I can come back now.

Yeah, please if you're ready.

So there is no made, so in other words adopted neighbourhood plan for Moreton and Marsh,

but there is one in preparation and it's it's the update on our website is that

we are looking at the regulation 16 consultation which has taken place so

there was a consultation that happened in April to May this year but since then

there's nothing on the website that suggests it's moved further so it isn't

a fully adopted neighbourhood plan at this point. I hope that helps.

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:09:48

Thank you very much, Cherry. We're going to come now to the comments. David, do you

Councillor David Fowles - 3:09:53

have your hand up first? Please go ahead.

Thank you, Chairman. I think that unless I'm reading the meeting wrongly, there seems to

be some general support for my now formal proposal that we actually conduct a site visit.

predominantly because of the comments that have been made by the ward Councillor and an extremely experienced

town Councillor, Eileen, who knows her stuff. We all know how much pressure there is on Morton and the Marsh already.

Anyone that's been up there, accused to get into the place.

But the thing that really causes me concern is a comment made by Paul about the very narrow access and

the thing that's very sensitive to me, if we're dealing with a care home, an end -of -life care, and

we're about to look at putting 10 houses right smack bang beside that I think

it's entering a whole new arena and I think we need a site visit very before

we can move forward on this application. I also think that by having a site visit

it will enable the officers to have it all the time because I think she's been put under a bit of

pressure here because she was, I don't know when you were given this application but it

sounds like it was comparatively recently so I think we could all do with a bit of

time to draw breath and go and have a site visit. I would recommend, Chairman, it's an

all members site visit. That's what I'm requesting. I think I've got a seconder on my right. Are

you still here? Yes, thank you.

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:11:24

I noted that I'm going up. Before we go to any vote, are there any more comments from

members?

Councillor Paul Evans - 3:11:35

Paul and then I'm going to go to Nicky.

I know David has a seconder for his proposal.

I would absolutely third it if that were possible.

I'm deeply uncomfortable about this and I go back to paragraph 10 .71.

It says that this would run at a deficit.

Wow.

I can't believe that anybody would build houses at a marginal deficit.

And it also says that if SIL were to be taken into account,

the scheme remains unviable.

Well, we need SIL out of this, and that would make this scheme

unavailable, unviable, and I would encourage the developer

to go back and look at that.

The second point is about the access and the fact that it's

next to a care home and what looks like a very narrow ingress

and egress just makes me really quite nervous.

So, yeah, site as it would be recommended.

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:12:29

Thank you. Thank you Paul. Do we have any more comments from members?

Councillor Nikki Ind - 3:12:37

Councillor Inge. Thank you. Yes, I think my comments mirror

Councillor Evans quite a bit. So I am concerned about, I'm really pleased we've got bungalows.

We don't see bungalows being built at all in the district. We have an ageing population,

but we have an ageing population of not all wealthy people and therefore we need

to have affordable housing that our ageing population can move into. So that

does concern me and also we talked about we talked about density and we talked

about if we're going to build on sites where we're bordering or on the Cotswold

National Landscape that we must get the density right now and that you know what

was previously the norm for a density has changed dramatically with the current situation

and I just question whether that's the right number of bungalows on that site. Could you

get more? I don't know. But then there's the whole access issue. I absolutely think that

a site visit and a normal member site visit would be useful.

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:13:45

Okay. Any more comments from members? I'm hearing, I think general support for the proposal

from Councillor Fowles to implement a, to go ahead with a site visit. I think we can

moved to a vote on that.

We vote on that.

Move to vote on that.

Tyler, if you could set up your...

Officer - 3:14:18

I have a comment first of all from our planning offices.

Chair, apologies.

Just to point out that the proposal

is for an all member site visit,

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:14:27

just to make that specific and clear.

Yeah, all member site visit.

That's something that we agreed, I think,

during the last meeting as well.

It will be an all member site visit.

Patrick.

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:14:41

Just one tiny point to do with that. I think that would probably be a site visit on Wednesday 5th August.

But our committee meeting is the day earlier the following week. It's on the Tuesday not the Wednesday because of the special council on Wednesday 12th.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 3:15:03

So just last minute raising, is there going to be any problem

with a reduced time available between the site visit

on a Wednesday and the following meeting being on a Tuesday,

not a Wednesday?

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:15:14

I can't, I don't suppose there is,

but I thought we just needed to cheque.

I don't think there's that.

I don't think so, because it's just for us to understand,

isn't it?

It will need the members and the officer.

We can give a verbal update at the meeting.

Councillor David Fowles - 3:15:31

Sure, the application, we're just doing a site visit, we're not asking for changes to the report.

So we'll just report back at the next meeting.

It'll be a shared meeting.

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:15:41

Report back at the next meeting.

So it'll be verbal, report back at the next meeting.

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:15:52

Indeed.

Tyler, are you ready?

Okay, we are going to vote Green for site visit Red against.

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:16:28

Okay, I think that...

David?

Can I speak?

Councillor David Fowles - 3:16:44

Tyler, have you finished?

Just go back.

Is the microphone working?

Yeah.

It's just a small authorization in relation to this application, but it's actually a general

comment, we're getting more and more site plans and things which are reductions from

much larger things, so they reduce so much that you can't actually read them.

So when the comment was made by Councillor Braslington, where's Aldi, unless you know

the town you wouldn't be able to see it because it's very, very small. Is it possible to try

get some of these graphics slightly larger so we can actually read them you

can't read what's on page whatever it is I can't even real page numbers yeah 25 I

think you make a good point David and I'm sure that our planning officers

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:17:37

have heard that thank you I could put your lighter I've got a couple

11 Sites Inspection Briefing

announcements to finish off we have now got a site inspection briefing on the

5th of August. We've we don't have to be notified about that. We've already filled it. Julia

12 Licensing Sub-Committee

will be in touch with us to arrange that. There is a licencing subcommittee for members

on the 9th of July in which we have got Councillor Dilish Neal. I will be subbing for Dilish.

David Fowles and Ray Brasington are both able to make that licencing committee tomorrow.

I wasn't required.

Councillor David Fowles - 3:18:25

On the inside of your agenda.

You told me yesterday I wasn't required. Am I now required?

I am required.

Paul is.

Guys, can we stop this talking?

I want to find out whether I'm required.

David, thank you.

I'll come to that.

Tyler?

I think Paul Evans.

David, that was the one who did that.

That's up to you again.

So it's Paul.

OK.

So Paul will be on for that.

I will be on for that.

Ray, you're OK for that tomorrow?

So that's perfect.

We sorted there.

There is a further meeting on the 14th of July 2026.

That will be myself, Julia Judd and Michael van de Waalen, not with us yet, but I will

be talking to them.

I will...

Oh?

Webcast Finished - 3:19:29

Are you ready?

Yes, sir.

See you then.

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 hCaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Cotswold District Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

There are currently no votes to display

Interactive webcast player

Planning and Licensing CommitteeWednesday, 8th July 2026 at 2:00pm

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:00:00

1 Apologies

Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:01:06

2 Substitute Members

3 Declarations of Interest

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:01:19

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:01:34

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:02:02

4 Minutes

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:02:30

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:02:51

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:02:57

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:03:20

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:03:32

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:03:35

5 Chair's Announcements

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:04:18

Councillor David Fowles - 0:05:37

Legal Services - 0:06:10

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:06:19

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:06:25

Legal Services - 0:06:34

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:06:53

6 Public questions

7 Member questions

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:07:40

Schedule of Applications

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:07:53

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:08:18

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:08:27

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:08:31

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:08:36

Councillor David Fowles - 0:08:40

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:08:51

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:08:56

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:09:04

Councillor Nikki Ind - 0:09:15

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:09:24

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:09:33

Officer - 0:09:39

Officer - 0:09:45

Legal Services - 0:09:52

Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:09:58

Officer - 0:10:12

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:10:28

8 25/02687/FUL Land Parcel East of Willersey Business Park

Officer - 0:12:11

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:13:33

Officer - 0:13:40

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:17:41

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:18:14

Town/Parish Council - 0:18:24

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:21:31

Ward Member - 0:21:56

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:26:05

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:26:44

Officer - 0:28:05

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:28:24

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:28:28

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:29:07

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:29:19

Officer - 0:29:31

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:32:29

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:33:04

Officer - 0:33:05

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:35:34

Officer - 0:36:25

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:38:22

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:38:24

Officer - 0:38:48

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:43:44

Officer - 0:45:15

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:46:03

Officer - 0:47:38

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:48:31

Councillor David Fowles - 0:48:36

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:50:37

Councillor David Fowles - 0:51:12

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