Planning and Licensing Committee - Tuesday 11 August 2026, 2:00pm

Planning and Licensing Committee
Tuesday, 11th August 2026 at 2:00pm

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Michael Vann
Councillor Nikki Ind
Councillor Ian Watson
Officer
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Legal Services
Julia Gibson, Officer
Councillor Ian Watson

1 Apologies

Share this agenda point

Julia Gibson, Officer
Councillor Ian Watson

3 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Ian Watson

4 Minutes

Share this agenda point

Minutes , 08/07/2026 Planning and Licensing Committee

Councillor Ian Watson

3 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

Legal Services
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Ian Watson

4 Minutes

Share this agenda point

Minutes , 08/07/2026 Planning and Licensing Committee

Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
04. To approve the minutes of a Planning Committee held 8 July 2026
Status: Ended

5 Chair's Announcements

Share this agenda point

Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson

6 Public questions

Share this agenda point

7 Member questions

Share this agenda point

Councillor Ian Watson

Schedule of Applications

Share this agenda point

Planning & Licensing Committee - 11 August 2026 - Index of Applications

8 25/02443/FUL - Land to the West of Fosseway Farm, Moreton-In-Marsh

Share this agenda point

Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Legal Services
Councillor Daryl Corps
Legal Services
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Town/Parish Council
Councillor Ian Watson
Supporter
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Applicant/Agent
Councillor Ian Watson
Ward Member
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Michael Vann
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Nikki Ind
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles
Officer
Legal Services
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Paul Evans
Officer
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Paul Evans
Officer
Councillor Paul Evans
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ray Brassington
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Ray Brassington
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Nikki Ind
Officer
Councillor Nikki Ind
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Officer
Councillor Nikki Ind
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Paul Evans
Officer
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Nikki Ind
Officer
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Ian Watson
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Paul Evans
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ray Brassington
08. 25/02443/FUL Land to the West of Fosseway Farm, Moreton-in-Marsh - REFUSE
Status: In progress
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
08. 25/02443/FUL Land to the West of Fosseway Farm, Moreton-in-Marsh - REFUSE
Status: Ended
Councillor David Fowles

8 25/02443/FUL - Land to the West of Fosseway Farm, Moreton-In-Marsh

Share this agenda point

Councillor Ian Watson

9 25/02960/FUL - Shoecroft Barn, Ablington, Bibury

Share this agenda point

Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Town/Parish Council
Councillor Ian Watson
Objector
Ward Member
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Nikki Ind
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Paul Evans
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Daryl Corps
Officer
Councillor Daryl Corps
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Nikki Ind
Officer
Councillor Nikki Ind
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Ian Watson
09. 25/02960/FUL Shoecroft Barn, Bibury - REFUSE
Status: In progress
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
09. 25/02960/FUL Shoecroft Barn, Bibury - REFUSE
Status: Ended

10 25/02961/LBC - Shoecroft Barn, Ablington, Bibury

Share this agenda point

Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Michael Vann
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Nikki Ind
Councillor Ian Watson
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Paul Evans
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Ian Watson
Legal Services
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Ian Watson
10. 25/02961/LBC Shoecroft Barn, Bibury - CONSENT
Status: In progress
10. 25/02961/LBC Shoecroft Barn, Bibury - CONSENT
Status: Ended
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson

11 26/01237/REM - Land South West of Alexander Drive and East of the Maples, Cirencester

Share this agenda point

Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Applicant/Agent
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Officer
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Paul Evans
Officer
Councillor Paul Evans
Officer
Councillor Paul Evans
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Officer
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Officer
Councillor Paul Evans
Officer
Councillor Paul Evans
Officer
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Ian Watson
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Ian Watson
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Ian Watson
11. 26/01237/REM Land South West of Alexander Drive, Cirencester - APPROVE
Status: In progress
Councillor Ian Watson
11. 26/01237/REM Land South West of Alexander Drive, Cirencester - APPROVE
Status: Ended
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles

11 26/01237/REM - Land South West of Alexander Drive and East of the Maples, Cirencester

Share this agenda point

Councillor Ian Watson

12 26/00905/FUL - Land South of Longfurlong Lane, Tetbury

Share this agenda point

Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Supporter
Councillor Ian Watson
Ward Member
Applicant/Agent
Councillor Ian Watson
Julia Gibson, Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles
Legal Services
Councillor David Fowles
Officer
Councillor Daryl Corps
Officer
Councillor Daryl Corps
Officer
Councillor Daryl Corps
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Paul Evans
Officer
Councillor Paul Evans
Officer
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Ian Watson
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Ian Watson
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Officer
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Ian Watson
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Nikki Ind
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Nikki Ind
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Nikki Ind
Councillor David Fowles
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Paul Evans
Officer
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Nikki Ind
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Paul Evans
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
12. 26/00905/FUL Land South of Longfurlong Lane, Tetbury - REFUSE
Status: In progress
12. 26/00905/FUL Land South of Longfurlong Lane, Tetbury - REFUSE
Status: Ended
Councillor David Fowles

13 26/01821/PLP - Land to the South of Manor Court, Eastleach

Share this agenda point

Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Objector
Applicant/Agent
Julia Gibson, Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Ward Member
Councillor Ian Watson
Legal Services
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Nikki Ind
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Daryl Corps
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Nikki Ind
Officer
Councillor Nikki Ind
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Daryl Corps
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Ian Watson
13. 26/01821/PLP Land South of Manor Court, Eastleach - REFUSE
Status: In progress
13. 26/01821/PLP Land South of Manor Court, Eastleach - REFUSE
Status: Ended
Councillor Ian Watson

14 Sites Inspection Briefing

Share this agenda point

15 Licensing Sub-Committee

Share this agenda point

14 Sites Inspection Briefing

Share this agenda point

15 Licensing Sub-Committee

Share this agenda point

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

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, both here in the chamber and those watching online.

Today we're in the planning committee with I think we've got four or five agenda points.

We will be voting electronically so that everybody will be able to see the votes on the screens

here when we vote on applications.

I would ask you now to please switch off your telephones or put them on silent so that we're

not disturbed.

I would also ask members of the public not to speak to committee members during these

proceedings. In terms of the length that speakers are allowed to talk, for applicants and members

of the public who are speaking, there will be three minutes. For ward members, five minutes

will be allowed. We will time that and let you know and give a reminder before the time

is up. I think I'd like to go first of all to do some introductions. Firstly of members,

Councillor Colman, if I can start with you and we'll go around the room.

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:01:58

Councillor Dalcour and I represent Moreton Marsh West in the North Cotswolds.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:02:04

Councillor Ray Bratislava, representative of Sire Incestor.

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:02:10

Councillor Paul Evans, I represent the Beaches Ward in Sire Incestor.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:02:15

Good afternoon, I'm Councillor David Fowles, I represent the Colne Valley which runs from

the Fosse Way to Lechlade.

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:02:23

Michael Van, I represent Fairford North.

Councillor Nikki Ind - 0:02:28

Good afternoon, I'm Councillor Nicky and I represent Tepry East and Royal.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:02:34

Councillor Ian Watson, Tepry Town Ward and I will be chairing this afternoon. If I can

go on now to the officers, we'll start here and work round.

Officer - 0:02:48

Rebecca McCangier, I'm a contract planner in development management.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:02:54

Harrison Bailey, I'm the head of planning services for Costa Rica Council.

Legal Services - 0:02:59

Mari Barnes, legal advisor to this committee.

Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:03:03

Julia Gibson, Democratic Services Officer.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:03:13

Thank you very much.

1 Apologies

I'm going to ask for apologies and substitutions.

Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:03:21

Yes, we have apologies from Councillor Dillis -Neal, Julia Judd and Nick Bridges.

We don't have any substitutes but Councillor Watson is in the chair and Councillor Nicky

Inge is vice chair today.

Thank you.

3 Declarations of Interest

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:03:38

Do we have any declarations of interest?

Councillor Evans.

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:03:46

Thank you, Chair.

I have a non -precuniary interest to declare in agenda item number 13.

Whilst I don't socially know the applicant, I have, he has accompanied his partner whilst campaigning in by -elections for me.

I come to this committee with an open mind and intend to participate in the debate and vote.

Thank you.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:04:21

Councillor Fowls I think you had your hand up. You could bear with me chairman.

On item 9 and 10 I have a non -precuniary interest because I know the applicant

and I've known the applicant for 35 years and at the last meeting as you

reminded me I spoke as the ward member and then I left the meeting didn't take

part in the debate and didn't vote. I would like to also say that during my time as the

ward member and the parish council representative today, I have not engaged with the applicant

other than at meetings where the applicants present and other members of the parish council

and representatives of the village are present. So we have not had any dialogue on any planning

matter whatsoever during the last three and a half years. The second item relates to item

13, PLP. We obviously all, well, the applicant is married to a member. That member happens

to live in my ward. I have not engaged with the applicant outside meetings of

this council or indeed literally town council where I attend. We have not met

socially or in any other capacity in the sub in in in Eastwich. Just wanted to let

know that okay thank you and finally on item 12 I know the applicant mr. Peter

Martin or as he reminded me we were both counsellors a long time ago before

everybody in this room was here so we haven't seen each other for many years

but I do know him and just thought to let you know that doesn't impact I have

nothing on pecuniary interest on that so it's really on the items do a Shrewcroft

where I will leave the room after I have spoken. Thank you.

Thank you David, that is very clear.

Thank you chair. Yes, I declare that agenda item 12, I know both the applicant Mr Peter Martin and particularly Mr Steven Kightly.

As with Mr Kightly, I have worked in the past and continue to work with his wife.

I've attended the initial meeting of the Longfield Greens Association where I

declared that I was there as an observer only and I abstained from all votes that

were cast at that meeting. Whilst I've received correspondence and updates as

both a district and town councillor in Tethbury, I have actively restrained from

any participation in respect of this application and I can confirm that

following legal advice I can approach the agenda item with an open mind ready

to listen to the report and debate and that advice is that I am allowed to proceed and take part.

And also for myself as a ward councillor for Tecmo Town Ward, I am aware of the

agenda item number 13. I have received emails from several people. I explained because of my

position, I wouldn't be able to comment. I haven't attended any meetings of the

Association or other parties and that was accepted and well understood. So

again I feel I can comment on this. David could I ask you to switch off your

microphone? It's good that it's on Chairman because I think you said item 13. Did you

mean item 13 or item 12? Item 12. That's why my

4 Minutes

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:08:18

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:08:25

thank you. Moving on we come to the minutes. We've got a declaration of

3 Declarations of Interest

Legal Services - 0:08:30

interest from our legal officer. Thank you if I can just declare item 11

My home adjoins this particular phase of the development, so I shall be leaving the room.

Officers suggested that they can either seek alternative legal advice or that they will be able to provide advice for that matter.

Thank you.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:08:55

Thank you very much. Ray.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:09:01

I live on Alexander Drive. Do I have to declare an address?

In this specific circumstances I actually neighbour this field which is

why I've declared an interest in this respect. I believe you are further away

from it as the road is long and unusually shamed so it's in respect of

whether you feel you can approach it with sufficiently open mind. I'm aware

that you have felt you have attended the items in the past

because you are in a different location

to the situation I'm in, and this specific one.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Ray.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:09:50

Are there any more?

I don't see any more.

4 Minutes

Moving on now to the minutes.

The minutes are included in your report box.

Are there any comments on the minutes?

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:10:10

Then we will vote. Yeah I would like to propose that we accept these minutes.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:10:22

All those in favour?

5 Chair's Announcements

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:11:03

Again, a request for, if we have breaks, for members of the committee not to discuss any

these applications with members of the public and vice versa. Again, for committee members,

when we go into phases, there will be a questioning phase and a debating phase. And I remind you

that questions start with who, what, why, where, and when, not with statements or personal

views that can be brought forward in the debate. For members of the public who may wish to

leave after their application has been heard, I would ask you to wait until the end of the

application and then an officer will come forward to take you out. I think as you may

have seen, we've got work, maintenance work going on downstairs on the automatic doors,

So we'll take you back out the way that you came in

We have no planned fire alarm this afternoon if the alarm does go off

Please follow the instructions of officers and you will be guided to

safety

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:12:25

Turning to democratic services. Do we have any public questions?

6 Public questions

7 Member questions

Members' questions?

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:12:42

Okay, thank you.

Then we will move into the agenda.

Schedule of Applications

On the first application, we have is to consider

8 25/02443/FUL - Land to the West of Fosseway Farm, Moreton-In-Marsh

and determine the applications contained within their closed schedule. Land to the west of

Fosway Farm, Moreton in the Marsh. There was a site inspection briefing involved in this,

but I would ask the officer to report first and then I'll come back to the site inspection

Officer - 0:13:23

briefing. Thank you chair. Members will be aware that this application was

deferred at the previous planning committee meeting to enable a committee

site visit to take place. The site visit was undertaken last week and the

application is therefore being reported back to members today. The published

recommendation on the agenda is for approval subject to Gloucestershire

County Council highways confirm that the site could accommodate a turn -in

refuse vehicle. Since the publication of the agenda further discussions have been

taken between the applicants agent and the highways authority and additional

information has been submitted which demonstrates that refuse vehicles can be

accommodated within the site. The highways authority has reviewed this

information confirms that is no objection to the proposal. In light of

this the recommendation is updated to permit the application subject to the

condition set out in the officer report and there will also be a need for an

additional condition in relation to landscaping to be added if the

recommendation is accepted because we're the turning area would be for the

refuse vehicle would mean that four of the trees shown on the original

landscaping screen couldn't be planted so we could attach a condition to any

consent granted to make sure that they're provided elsewhere in the site.

So as I said this application relates to land to the west of Fosway farm, Stowe

Road, Moreton in Marsh. The application extends to around 0 .79 hectares and is

located on the west of the town, immediately adjacent to but outside the

defined settlement boundary. The site is currently undeveloped and sits between existing development

and open countryside. To the east of the recently constructed Aldi supermarket at Edmere Gardens

Keir home. To the north of recreational uses including a multi -sports facility and bowls club

with residential properties beyond and to the south and west the site adjoins agricultural land

as an 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 west

and boundary of the site,

which forms part of the monarch's way.

This is therefore an edge of settlement site,

which is closely related to the existing development

that remains within the sensitive landscape area.

So this is the proposed layout.

the proposal is for 10 single -storey three -bedroom bungalows

together with access, parking, landscaping

and associated infrastructure.

The development would adopt a low density form

with vehicular access taken from the existing

highway network served in the adjacent Aldi store

and Keer home.

Each dwelling would benefit from private amenity space

and parking provision.

The layout's been designed to respond to its surroundings

by retaining important landscape features, respect and neighbouring uses and creating

a gradual transition from the built -up part of Moreton Marsh towards the open countryside beyond.

Existing trees and hedgerows would be retained where possible and supplemented by additional

planting. The site also benefits from good accessibility being within walking distance

of local facilities, bus stops and town centre,

and retaining the existing public footwork path connexion

along the western boundary.

Members will note that under the local plan policy H2,

a scheme of this size would ordinarily be expected

to provide affordable homes.

However, the applicant submitted

a financial viability assessment,

which has been independently reviewed

on behalf of the council as part of the planning process.

The independent review concluded that the development

is unable to viable support policy compliance

affordable housing provision.

And the key factors in this are the small scale

of the scheme being that it cannot benefit

from economies of scale,

together with the higher construction costs.

Sorry.

Go back.

The key factor that the small scale of the scheme,

she's a punch, she's a punch.

Really get a call, there you go.

The key factors of the small scale of the scheme,

meaning it cannot benefit from economies of scale

together with a higher construction cost

associated with delivering 10 detached

single storey bungalows.

The review found that policy compliance

affordable housing requirement would create

a substantial viability deficit

and the scheme remains financially marginal

even without affordable housing provision.

Officers have therefore accepted the viability evidence

and no affordable housing contribution

is sought in this instance.

Turning now to the proposed elevations and designs.

As I said, this scheme comprises of 10 detached bungalows.

The decision to use single -storey dwellings

reflects the sensitivity of the site

and would help minimise the visual impact on the developments on the national landscape

and neighbouring properties. In terms of appearance, the proposed dwellings draw upon the local

Cotswold character, stone as the principal face and material, traditional detail such

as chimneys and stone windows surround. The design seeks to create a locally distinctive

development that would reflect the principal set out in the Cotswold design code and would

provide an appropriate transition from the settlement edge into the surrounding countryside.

conditions are recommended requiring approval of stone samples and detailing

to ensure high quality finish and overall officers consider the scale

appearance of materials to be appropriate for this location. So moving

on to some photographs now of the site and this one is taken across the

application site towards the northern boundary. Members can see the site is

currently open grasslands while also benefiting from a strong landscape edge

comprising of existing trees and hedgerow planting which should be retained and enhanced as part of

the development. The image demonstrates how the site is relatively well contained by existing

vegetation which help limit wider views and the retained landscape and additional landscaping

would help soften the appearance of the proposed development and maintain a landscaped edge to the

settlement. A member should also note the route to the public footpath along the far

western boundary that you can see there, part of Monarch's Way, which would be contained

and provide connectivity to the town and wider countryside.

This photograph is taken on the route of the proposed access into the development. Immediately

to the right, you can see the existing Ellesmere Gardens, Kehoe, which adjoins the site along

eastern boundary. Members should note that representation has been received

from the care home since publication of the committee report. The care home has

advised that it has not commented on the application due to contractual

obligations associated with the land transaction as part of the access to the

site sits within their land ownership and rather than because it has held no

views on the proposal. The access would utilise the existing highways

infrastructure serving the care home and Aldi development before entering the

application site itself. The submitted transport statement estimates that

development would generate about six vehicle movements during morning peak

hour and five during the evening peak hour and the Highways Authority considered

this limited level of traffic generation to be acceptable. The application site

formerly formed part of a wider land holding which was subsequently divided

with land sold for the Aldi store in the care home. Although part of the proposed

access route crosses land now with the ownership of the care home the

applicant retains the necessary rights to construct and use an adoptable access

road and provide associated service connexions across this land. Officers

are therefore satisfied there are no land ownership issue constraints that

would prevent the implementation of any consent.

Looking ahead in the photograph,

the main body of the site can be seen beyond.

And this image also illustrates the existing vegetation

along the western side of the access corridor,

which contributes to the character

and existing landscape framework.

And it demonstrates that while the application site

is currently undeveloped,

it closely relates to existing built development

as physically connected to the established

Marl Morton in Marsh.

So this final photograph is taken from within the application site looking back towards

the Keir home. Members can clearly see the Esmeer Gardens Keir home which forms the principal

neighbouring building to the site. The image helps to illustrate the relationship between

the two developments. The photograph demonstrates that the site sits immediately alongside existing

and development and forms part of the transition

between the settlement edge and the open countryside.

The open land in the foreground represents the area

where proposed bungalows would be constructed.

And given that all proposed dwellings are single storey

in form, they would be substantially lower in scale

than the adjacent care home.

Appropriate separation distances together

with the boundary treatments of landscape

have been incorporated into the scheme

and therefore offers us a satisfied

and acceptable relationship would be maintained

between the proposed development and the neighbouring Keer Home while also providing a suitable

living environment for future residents.

So to conclude, the proposal seeks permission for 10 single -storey bungalows on the site

located adjacent to the existing built -up edge of Morton in Marsh. The photographs are

demonstrated the site is closely related to the existing development including the Keer

and oldie was also benefiting from 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 integrated into the development

and its surroundings to provide a soft transition

between the settlement edge and adjoining countryside.

And members are therefore asked to consider

the application before them with the recommendation

being to permit the development subject to conditions including the additional landscaping

scheme which I mentioned earlier. Thank you.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:24:33

Thank you very much. Before we go on to questions, Marie, you want to, or should I?

Legal Services - 0:24:45

Yes thank you. Sorry, I've just noticed when this matter previously came before the committee,

Councillor Croy, you spoke as ward member and raised an interest and left.

Can I ask if you are intending to speak as ward member again and leave?

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:25:05

Thank you.

Legal Services - 0:25:09

I am intending to speak as ward member and leave before the debate.

Thank you for clarifying.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:25:13

Thank you very much indeed.

Then before we go on to questions, I would like to invite public speakers.

and the first public speaker I have on my list is Councillor Viviani.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:25:44

And object to Carol Sugru.

If you come up, please.

The applicant, Dale Radford.

And, Darryl, if you take your place in the board member's seat.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:26:23

Thank you very much.

That's all the speakers on this application.

In order that I've got it here, I'm going to start with Councillor Viviani.

And just a reminder, you have three minutes.

And we'll time you, but for sure let you know before we get to the end.

Town/Parish Council - 0:26:47

The light will come on and start when you're ready.

Thank you.

Before I go further, I want to thank the planning officer for amending the conditions

relating to water issues. Planning Committee members you are being asked to

determine this application on site 28B referred to in the local plan draught

housing supply stepped requirement topic paper as a site with capacity for 20

dwellings and this is mentioned by the Planning Officer however the documents I

mentioned actually makes reference to the delivery of 10 dwellings on this

site and that is why I have requested answers via Democratic Services on

points relating to this site and application. The viability issues identified for the delivery

of ten dwellings with no affordable housing offered and the possibility of a future revised

application are mentioned. I have asked with whom has the principle of a memorandum of

understanding been agreed and what is its purpose and status? I have had no answers

and I'm not sure if you have. Would S106 not reasonably have been requested for three bedroomed

Before members determine this application, I ask the planning officer to confirm whether

granting and implementing this 10 dwelling layout would prevent or prejudice delivery

of the approximately 20 dwellings included in the CDC's emerging local plan and housing

trajectory.

We have asked this question in advance and received no answer.

If that clarification cannot be provided today, members will need to decide whether they have

sufficient information to determine whether this proposal makes effective use of this

site. We talk about our NHS, our BBC, well to my mind it's our Cotswold National Landscape,

a reason why this application matters. Thank you.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:28:36

Thank you very much indeed, Councillor Viviani. If I can move on now to Carol Sugro. Carol,

if you press the red button, you've got three minutes and we'll remind you before we get

Supporter - 0:28:50

to the end.

I know that members will already be familiar with the planning history of this site, the

development boundary and the fact that this land sits within the Cotswold area of outstanding

natural beauty. I also know that the committee will understand that this site has been refused

before and that allowing development here risks weakening a boundary that has protected

the edge of Moreton and Marsh for many years. So I do not want simply to repeat the policy

arguments. I want to ask members to pause and reflect on what this place is and who

it serves. Esme Gardens is not just a building next to a development site, it is a nursing

home for people who are elderly, frail and vulnerable. For people who have dementia,

neurological impairments, oxygen needs and for people who are nearing the end of their

lives. For those residents, the setting is not incidental. The peace routine, open countryside,

wildlife, life and views across the area of outstanding natural beauty are part of the

quality of life the home can offer. Many of us can choose where we go for peace and fresh

air. These residents cannot. For some, this view, this garden and this quiet edge of the

countryside is the world they now experience most. What may look on paper like a construction

of tin bungalows would, in reality, mean months of disturbance with noise, dust, reversing

alarms, lorries, workers, congestions and uncertainty to people whose health and wellbeing

depend on calm. The proposed access and additional vehicle movement would also introduce avoidable

risk in an environment for the home staff and the residents, friends and family members

when they visit. This is why the landscape matters. The area of outstanding and acrobuty

is not simply a line on a map. In this location, it is the very thing that gives Esmeer Gardens

its tranquilly, dignity, and sense of refuge. Once that openness is lost, it cannot be restored.

Once this boundary is breached, the harm is not only to planning policy, but to the character

of the place and to the people who depend on it most.

The question is not only whether 10 additional homes can be fitted onto a piece of land.

The question is whether they should be when the cost is borne by people who are in the

final stages of their lives.

For most of us, the countryside is something we enjoy.

For these residents, it may be the last peaceful and beautiful thing they are seeing.

I ask members to consider whether any development benefit can truly outweigh taking that peace

from people who have so little power to speak for themselves.

In an area of outstanding natural beauty, a long -standing development boundary and the

well -being of vulnerable nursing home residents, if it cannot be protected here, then where

will they be protected?

For these reasons, I ask that this application is refused, not only to protect the countryside,

but to protect the dignity, safety and finally, as the people who call Izmir Gardens their

home.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:32:01

Thank you very much indeed. If I can move along now to the applicant's

role, Mr Dale Radford. You have three minutes.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:32:11

On the screen, the lady who has just spoken is an objector and on the screen, visible

to everybody, it said supporter. She's clearly not a supporter. I'm sure no one would be

Councillor David Fowles - 0:32:30

in any doubt as to how she felt, but it said on there, supporter, supporter, supporter.

Okay, I just think we need to make that point for the lady's benefit and any other speakers

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:32:40

today. Thank you very much for pointing that out, David, I appreciate it. Again, for the

public record, I would like to make perfectly clear that Ms. Carol Sugu was an objector

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:32:59

and not a supporter of this application. Mr. Radford, again, three minutes. Press the red

button when you're ready to go and we'll start timing when you start to speak.

Applicant/Agent - 0:33:09

Thank you.

So good afternoon, Chair and members.

I appear today on behalf of Aspect Homes,

once more in support of your officer's recommendation

to approve this application.

Following last month's deferral,

I understand members have now had the opportunity

to visit the site and consider the proposal

and its relationship with Moreton and Marsh

and the adjacent care home firsthand.

The additional sweat path analysis

requested by Gloucestershire County Council Highways

has now been submitted and addresses a specific issue

of refuge vehicle manoeuvring within the site.

And therefore members are able to determine

this application based on the officer's

updated recommendation this afternoon.

Turning to the wider planning balance,

this is a modest proposal for 10 single storey bungalows

providing a specialist form of housing.

This is increasingly needed.

Its layout, landscaping and design respond carefully

to the site's constraints

and provide an appropriate transition between Morton and Marsh and the

national landscape whilst delivering biodiversity and accessibility benefits.

The council remains unable to demonstrate a five -year housing land

supply and the planning balance under paragraph 11 of the MPPF therefore

remains engaged. Your officer concludes that the benefits of the proposal

outweigh the policy conflict and that it represents sustainable development. We

agree. There has also been a significant development since members last

considered the application. The council's emerging local plan now proposes this

site as a non -strategic housing allocation. Whilst not yet adopted, this

is a clear indication of the council's emerging position that the site is

capable of accommodating housing. Furthermore, the applicant to support

this proposed allocation has signed a memorandum of understanding confirming

the delivery of 10 dwellings before 2028, subject to planning. Recent planning

The planning and inspection decisions at Moreton and Marsh and Litchlade provide further, very

recent context regarding housing delivery and the planning balance within this district.

Against that backdrop, this proposal is particularly well located.

It sits immediately adjacent to Moreton and Marsh, provides easy access to shops, healthcare

and public transport and gives residents direct access to the surrounding countryside through

the retained and enhanced public right of way.

Importantly, the proposal has been through thorough assessment by council professionals

covering landscape, highways, drainage, ecology, arboriculture and viability.

No outstanding technical objections remain.

Chair and members, the recommendation before you represents the considered professional

judgement of your offices.

The scheme provides specialist housing in a sustainable location on a site considered

to be suitable, responds to the Council's housing need, enhances biodiversity, improves

access to the countryside and wider national landscape. For those matters, we respectfully

ask members to support the officer's recommendation and grant planning permission this afternoon.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:36:13

Thank you. Perfect timing, thank you. Councillor Cawley,

Ward Member - 0:36:19

you have five minutes. Thank you, Chair. Firstly, can I thank members

and offices for taking the time to attend this site visit.

I thought it was genuinely helpful to see the site,

its surroundings, and its relationship

with Esmea Gardens nursing home firsthand.

When this application first came before us, I raised concerns

about developing the site outside

of the development boundary, its relationship

with the surrounding countryside

and the neighbouring nursing home.

However, having now visited the site, I remain concerned.

This site is outside of the development boundary.

It's also in a sensitive location on the edge of Moreton and Marsh

and adjoining the Cotswold National Landscape. There's also a wider

strategic point and the council is currently updating its local plan

and deciding where significant future housing growth should go

and Moreton is already being asked to accommodate substantial development

through that process. So I think we have to ask, or you have to

be asked, if we are going through a major

strategic planning process to decide where development should go. Why would we

then approve additional development on a site outside of the development boundary

that has yet to be selected? Otherwise we risk planning more than one application

at a time rather than strategically. And there's another important point here. The

scheme provides zero affordable homes and zero socially rented homes. So when

members are weighing up the harm of further development in this sensitive

landscape there is no affordable or socially rented housing benefit here to

place on the other side of that balance. We are being asked to accept the impact

on the setting of the Cotswold National Landscape without even securing that

important public benefit. I also want to be very clear about Esmeer Gardens. It is

not a care home, it is a 24 -hour nursing home. Its residents include people with

significant nursing needs, including some receiving

end -of -life care.

And since our last meeting, I have received correspondence

from Charles Taylor, the director of the company

operating Esmeer Gardens, which I think members should hear

and follow, because there were questions regarding why hasn't

the nursing home objected to this application.

So with his permission, I will read his letter out.

I'm writing to you from Esme Gardens nursing home.

I understand that you've been contacted by a relative

of one of our residents, Carol Sugry,

regarding the planning permission for bungalows

to the rear of our property.

Carol wanted me to write and explain

that whilst the planning report states

that we have not submitted any objections

to the development, which is true,

this is because under the contract,

the purchase of the site,

we are legally obligated not to comment on the planning application to the rear

of us. It's rather than our lack of comment to mean that we have no opinions

on the future development. I would appreciate if you would pass our

comments to the relevant planning officer but appreciate that they do not

form part of the legal planning process. You will sincerely charge Taylor.

Members, I think that's a very important piece of clarification. Members might

reasonably have assumed that the absence of an objection from the neighbouring

nursing home indicated no concern. We now know from this letter that that is not a

safe assumption to make. I've never personally come across a situation where

a neighbouring nursing home says it's contractually prevented from commenting

on the planning application but it seems they are. So I'd ask members to consider

the whole picture very carefully. A site outside of the development boundary in

in the national landscape, not identified, and zero affordable or socially rented homes.

The sensitive relationship with a neighbouring nursing home whose residents include people

receiving end -of -life care and now this very unusual restriction on that nursing home's

ability to comment. Thank you very much.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:40:27

Thank you, Councillor Cawe. If the speakers would like to go back to their seats.

We were lucky enough to have a site inspection briefing at the site, was it last week?

Last week.

Is there any members who would like to talk about their experience of what they learned on that visit?

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:41:03

Thank you very much chair. The features that weren't particularly relevant other

than in a setting was that my journey there as a passenger in another

Councillor's car was straightforward and quick. By the time we'd spent 45 minutes

there it was a nightmare coming down the Fosse Way. I am fully convinced this is a

completely irrelevant point to make which I apologise temporarily. Serious

points being when you look at the plan first of all it was quite striking and

we could see it from the plan and even more on the ground.

So what's supposed to have been, you'd think,

a planned development of an edge of town

has been one chunk, then another, and now a third.

And I recall that I was actually a member

of this committee temporarily when the Aldi was approved,

because my memory is strong of the support

for Aldi given at the time,

I think by Moreton in Marsh town council.

And they opened our eyes, I think,

to the fact that Moreton in Marsh is by no means

the most prosperous town in the Cotswold,

to put it politely.

and they were looking forward to that Aldi.

And presumably they're fairly happy to have a top class nursing home.

And clearly the nursing home can't say what it really thinks because it's signed some documents.

Thank you very much to Council of Court.

But looking at the site, for me it was a classic example of how Cotswold National Landscape

has not got equity of value as a national landscape across the whole of its thousands and thousands of acres.

Some bits are a bit scruffy, some bits are a bit ordinary.

That bit I noticed is affected by noise from an elevated east -west road.

Councillor Caul reminded me what the number of it was, but I was a little surprised by that.

So as we look to fulfil our, this is my final comment really,

as we're coming forward to trying to find the places for twice as many properties every year for 15 years,

Looking at the scruffier corner bits of the national landscape will be one of the things

we'll be doing and indeed I think our officers are already finding one or two here and there.

So I couldn't see a strong reason for turning it down from the visit, although I was impressed

by the public speaker today who I understand has a relative in the home.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:43:16

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Callman. Councillor

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:43:23

Bazzington. Yes, thank you, Chair. Just a brief outline for our site visit. We

accessed the site from the fast way which we know is very busy road. You first go

past Aldi supermarket, then you go past the nursing home, then you go into the

site. In entering the site you go past the side of a nursing home and we observe

that there is one bedroom on that site so any vehicles passing along there will

obviously be heard by any occupants of that one room. On the site itself it's

all open. I classified as scrub land. It is enclosed because of trees all around.

In relation to the nursing home at the back of there a number of the rooms have

got balconies so anybody sitting outside on the balconies would obviously be able

to see and hear the site. That's quite evident there are a lot of balconies there.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:44:25

That's my comments for the site to visit. Thank you. I think Councillor Fowles was

Councillor David Fowles - 0:44:30

next. Yeah, thank you Chairman. I don't want to repeat what Councillors Coleman and

Massington have already said but I think the board member said that one of the main

reasons we went there and recommended a site visit was because of the proximity of the lane, the access to

to the home itself. And yes, we had a discussion about

what those windows represented. Were they hallways or whatever?

But as Councillor Brassington said, it appeared that one of the rooms was a, one of the windows was a room for a resident.

I was struck all the time I was on that site by the fact that it was outside the development boundary and

and what I found a little bit surprising if I could comment not the criticism Rebecca but

that shot you took of the nursing home that was a very long lens and it looked like the nursing

home is way off in the distance and I was just struck by the fact that this site was

near to the public footpath and near to the nursing home. I don't know that I can comment

on the letter that was, I'm going to make a point about this letter that was read out

that we hadn't received, but I felt really that I would much prefer that the site was

just left as it was because it was open countryside for the comments that had been made about

the nursing home by Councillor Braslington, people coming out on balconies. It's not just

about the nursing home, it's about the relatives who are going to see their relatives who may

dying who may be ill accessing the garden and at the moment they look out

over at an open countryside which is outside the development boundary and if

this is approved it will be they'll be confronted by bungalows. I also want to

comment on the fact there's no affordable housing but that's not

relation to the site so at the moment technically as the applicant spoke it

ticks all the boxes but for the reasons to do with the nursing home and the

outside the development boundary I felt really uncomfortable about the site and

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:46:40

the access to it. Thank you, Chairman.

Council Bann.

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:46:43

Very little to add to what has already been said except to confirm the entrance really is pretty tight.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:46:57

Councillor Nikki Ind - 0:46:59

Council Inge.

Yes, thanks chair, not wanting to repeat everything. Moving on from Councillor Van's comment about

it being tight, I noticed the loss of two parking spaces that belong to the vCare home

and most of those spaces were actually full when we were there at 10 o 'clock in the morning.

The public right of way, I was trying to establish exactly where that was. It's quite a large

site actually it's quite a it's a largest piece of land so I've got lots

of other things to say in comments but I don't think that's relevant to the site

visit the type the entrance the fact you lose two spaces was an additional then I

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:47:44

my comment from the site inspection briefing is that when this application

first came to this committee, my big question was on access. Looking at the

site itself, I don't have any strong objection to the building there, but I

did question access to the site. I know that there was no comment from highways

with access from the main road.

But seeing the single lane there

and calculating the volume of cars,

that has eased my mind a little bit about access.

It's not gonna be hundreds of cars

going up and down that road.

There is plenty of space to get in and out.

So I am, can't, I don't have a strong objection to it.

and my mind has been slightly eased by the size of the lane there.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:48:56

I go now to specific questions for the officer,

Councillor Fowls, Councillor Evans.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:49:10

I'd like either from Harrison or Rebecca or indeed Mari I'd like some clarity on

this letter that was read out by the Darryl firstly I can't see it in the

pack so did do have we received that letter or is it the ward member that

received it and secondly it seems from hearing it but they're not allowed to

comment because of some commitment that they made when they built the site, they built

the nursing home, yet they did comment because by virtue of a letter that had nothing in

it but was clear that there were some issues. So I'd like some clarity on whether that

letter is, we're allowed to refer to it or if in a court of law we've got to disregard

it now that it's been presented and basically why we haven't had it before, frankly. Thank

Thank you. Rebecca, can you take that or can Mari take it? Thank you.

Officer - 0:50:08

Just to explain, so I've received that this morning and this can fire Democratic Services,

so I've received clarification this morning in that email, so that's why I mentioned it.

It's part of my presentation so that you are aware of it. I can't comment on when the

board member received it and maybe Bari could confirm in terms of its legality

in terms of how you consider it. Thank you.

Legal Services - 0:50:33

Thank you chair. Thank you chair. I think all we can say regarding that

letter is you have to take it on the face value of for what it said. They

said that they cannot comment on it because they were obliged not to comment

on it and they didn't provide any further information in that letter. I don't, it would

be very difficult to support any reading into that because you were making assumptions on,

you were reading between the lines, you were making assumptions that aren't there. The

letter has to be taken on the face of what it provided.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:51:11

I'm back with all due respect to both those comments. My understanding of it, it was read

out because they wanted to comment but they couldn't comment. They're not sending in a

letter to comment. Your question, there were questions. It just seems bizarre that we've

had a letter that says no comment when it seems to me to be riddled with

insinuation that it is a comment. You can come to that in comments, that isn't a

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:51:37

question. Okay, all right. Well I'm taking it as a comment, okay, thank you.

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:51:40

Councillor Evans. Thank you, thank you to all the speakers for valuable information.

I'm somewhat reassured by your comments chair that the access isn't quite as

narrow as I certainly was concerned but I also hear feedback that actually it's

quite tight. Can I just ask whether there is a pavement that is planned to go

alongside the road to the access? Is that a standard width pavement? I can't

remember what size they are and what width does that leave the

highway as.

Officer - 0:52:21

From memory I think that pavement is 1 .8 metres wide.

But should maybe point out that the access route goes down to single carriageway.

So we would accommodate a single car.

And then there's a parking space.

and also I think I mentioned in the presentation,

is in the report that there would be six vehicles

used in the peaks, having them all inside.

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:52:50

My question was about if we have a narrow pavement,

irrespective of how many vehicle things are going up and down,

there is still a risk if it's a very narrow single carriageway

to people who might be using that footway,

but it sounds that it's a decent size.

I've got a second question. Do you want me to cover that now?

I noted like colleagues I'm verging on being kind of appalled that there's no

social housing provision here. We are desperate for social housing provision

in the Cotswold district and I noticed that the assessment which is

independent and I cannot query that. The only thing I would like to get some

clarity though is what do we mean by marginal? Because frankly marginal could

mean 10 % if you have regular margins 12 % or it could mean 5 % if it's usually 6%.

Can we quantify what we mean by marginal in the viability assessment? In what

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:54:01

context? It says that the development remains marginal but I've never known a

make an investment on something they might not make a decent profit out of

and I'm therefore questioning and would like to understand what we mean by

Officer - 0:54:17

marginal here. Normally when the viability assessments undertaken it

gives works into that the developer profit of it is 20 % normally 50 to 20 %

normally so that would be built into it and at the last committee there was

quite a lot of discussion about the viability.

So I've gone back to the independent assessor

and sort of had a meeting with them and worked through it.

And the main problem with the site is that it's quite small.

So if there were more 50 houses,

you get economies of scale.

So it's always more expensive to build

a smaller number of properties.

And it's always more expensive to build bespoke properties.

So large, you know, the five big house builders

can build cheaper than the more bespoke property. So it's all to do with

economies of scale and build costs of the problem with the viability of this site.

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:55:10

I understand that it just it just feels that you know the developer maintains

their margin and the residents of the South Cotswold do without an affordable

home and there's something I think it always feels like a bit of give and take

on both sides really and I'm not entirely comfortable that that is

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:55:28

happening here but anyway thank you it should be mentioned that is part of the

planning practise guidance that sets out that developer market.

So it is sort of we're following that but I appreciate what you're saying.

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:55:39

I absolutely understand Harrison I absolutely understand how it works I'm just questioning that

actually you know instinctively to residents of the Cotswolds particularly

those in Morton in Marsh that need these affordable homes they ain't getting one

because the developer maintains a good margin. Thank you I've got Councillor

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:56:01

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:56:03

Blaschington, Councillor Folles and Councillor Inge. Thank you chair I've got

two questions. How much weight do we give to the fact that it's outside the

development boundary but it's now been included in the draught local plan as a

proposed non -strategic housing association.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:56:22

So the draught local plan is obviously still in draught.

We would give it at this stage, minimal to no weight.

Obviously there's a full council meeting tomorrow.

If it goes through that and is agreed to go

towards regulation 19, you would at that stage

start to give it again, minimal to limited weight.

At the point of a regulation 19,

so that'll be the end of August,

you then start to give it again, limited weight still,

but a little bit more limited weight if that makes sense. But at this point it hasn't gone through

full Council so it hasn't been agreed to go towards Regulation 19. So it's an indication or a

direction of travel for the Council but it is no more than that. It is given minimal to no weight.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:57:00

How much weight do we give to the fact that it's outside the development boundary?

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:57:06

So well the existing local plan still stands but obviously the DS policies are out of date so they

are the policy of looking at the tilted balance. Normally it would be a DS4 site which would

be contrary to DS4, open market housing. However, DS4 is out of date. We therefore have to engage

the tilted balance which is then when we go through this balancing exercise of looking

at the significantly and demonstrably test. So Rebecca does set that out in section A

of her report on page 28 starting at 10 .7. But yes, so it is out. It is in conflict with

DS4, but DS4 carries no weight because it is an out -of -date policy in the development plan.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:57:43

The second question related to the cycleway, it's proposed it's going to go into the

Officer - 0:57:53

footpath of the Monarchs Way, is that possible? I think that issue came up

quite early on in the process, so following concerns that were raised at

that point, the scheme was amended so the cycleway won't link into the Monarchs Way now.

Thank you. Councillor Fowles.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:58:12

Not for the first time Councillor Brassington has beat me to the question. One of my questions,

one was to do with what's the point of having a development boundary if we then look at

applications and disregard that boundary. The question I had is in relation to the feedback

we've had from residents of Morton. On page 26, 8 -2, members queried at the

previous committee meeting whether the care home had objected. We now know the

position there. Whilst a number of representations have been received from

individuals associated with the care home, I'd just like to get a feel if I could,

Rebecca, from all the comments that you've listed on page 26. Are you able to

extrapolate from those off the top of your head what the people associated

with the care home were saying. I'd really like to get a good feel for that

because clearly we haven't heard from the care home per se but clearly we are

hearing from people who are associated with it. Could you could you extrapolate

from that list? The quantity of comments is not material. No I wasn't asking

Harrison, I didn't ask for the quantity, I'm asking for, I just want to

roughly what they were saying. It's on page 26 is the extent of the public

comments and who says what. Those are public comments so we can't

extrapolate from those. Okay all right okay thank you.

Councillor Nikki Ind - 0:59:41

Councillor End. Thank you chair and just a couple of questions one is can you

confirm that there's no age restriction for the purchase of these bungalows?

Officer - 0:59:51

That's correct there's no age restriction they would be open market

Councillor Nikki Ind - 0:59:57

property. So I suppose what I'm going on to now is obviously with an ageing

population and a lot of mainly apartments I'm sure bungalows are

really nice but I am too very concerned that there is no affordable

housing here. We have lots of regular ordinary Cotswold residents who can't

forward a nice, what will be a nice bungalow,

I would imagine quite a good size.

Are you telling me that because DS4 is out of date,

because we haven't yet got to regulation 19,

that when we say in our emerging local plan,

we refer to protecting and enhancing

our Cotswold district landscape,

including any designation to the CNL,

alongside historic settlements and the wider natural built environment that it's not a core priority.

We can't say that that's a core priority for us just because of this lack of housing.

I'm trying to understand what my position is as a councillor, how I might feel about something's one thing,

but legally where I stand should there be an appeal. I'm trying to understand that. Thank you.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:01:13

So effectively viability is notwithstanding the lack of housing land supply, viability

is still something that a developer can question and they can put forward. Our local plan policy

H2 includes point six which relates to where a question viability is questioned or if a

community survey is considered an open book assessment will be required. The local planning

authority will arrange an external assessment which will be paid for by the developer. So

So we've received the viability issue,

we've peer reviewed it with our own independent assessment

and our view is that we are happy to be able to accept

that viability position.

So in accordance with page two of the existing local plan,

we followed that process.

Obviously the weight attributed to viability

is still a matter for the decision maker.

But the PPG sets out clearly

that we must consider viability.

Policy H2 again sets out there's this viability exercise.

members will need to consider the wider planning balance

in terms of the tilted balance,

but obviously the lack of affordable housing

is not weighing against the developer,

but it's not weighing in favour of them either,

but equally they have followed the process

set out in the local plan policy

and reached this conclusion.

So again, the weight attributed to these board members,

but we have had it independently reviewed on our behalf

by viability experts and their recommendations

that accept the viability evidence

for by the applicant.

Is there anything you want to add to that?

Officer - 1:02:36

No, I agree with you, yeah.

Councillor Nikki Ind - 1:02:40

I think the point I'm trying to make is that normally for

development within the CNL there has to be an exception, a good reason why we would put housing

in the Cotswold National landscape, outside of boundary.

And I suppose what I'm trying to understand is does that policy not exist for us right now because of the

and land high supply?

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:03:05

How would you mean, there's no,

I mean there's a policy in terms of

we have statutory requirement to further the,

I can't remember the top of my head with the wording,

the part of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act

that further the purpose of serving

and enhancing the natural beauty.

The special exceptional circumstances point

is only applied to major development

within the context of the MPPF.

So this development wouldn't be major development

within that context, so it wouldn't apply,

It's a paragraph 60 off the top of my head of the MPPF where you have to have exceptional circumstances for development within the national landscape

but you would nevertheless have to apply the statutory duty and policies of the M4 and the M5 and in terms of

do they do the purposes and conserve the

character and special qualities of the national landscape, but it doesn't need to meet the special qualities or special circumstances test in the MPPF.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:03:56

Councillor Paul Evans - 1:03:58

Councillor Edwards. Thank you.

I suddenly remembered this one just as I stopped speaking last time. Do we have

any information on who owned the site where the application is going

beforehand and effectively? I'm trying to get to the an understanding of why

Ellesmere Gardens have some contractual bind into not being in a position to

comment and therefore represent their residents. So who may have owned bits of this?

Officer - 1:04:31

Yeah my understanding is that the applicant owns the site. They've

submitted a little note in terms of land ownership if you want me to run through

that with you which I sort of summarised in my presentation but it may be

useful for you to fully understand. So bear with me while I read it out verbatim.

So the land historically formed part of a single ownership before being

subdivided and subsequently sold to Aldi, supermarkets and the ownership of

of Esmea Gardens' Kea Home.

Through these transactions, the landowner,

acting on behalf of the applicant,

retained the necessary legal rights of access

across the intervening land to enable the remaining land,

now subject to the current planning application,

to be accessed and developed.

The retained rights include the right to construct

and use an adoptable highway access

and to provide the necessary services

across the land now occupied by the Kea Home,

by providing a legally established means of access

and service into the application site.

Accordingly, the current land ownership arrangement

does not prevent or otherwise prejudice

the delivery of the proposed development.

The applicant has the necessary legal rights

to secure the access and service connexions

required to implement the development,

notwithstanding that the intervening land

is now within separate ownership.

The land ownership position and retained rights

have been taken into account in the preparation

and submission of the plan and application and the requisite certificate B notices have

been served on the relevant landowners who are the Gloucestershire County Council Highway

Authority and the owners of Esmeer Care Home. So that's just a clarification from the applicant

and the agent in terms of land ownership because it's been quite a part of the discussion of

the application.

Councillor Paul Evans - 1:06:22

That's fine. So my understanding is that Esmeer actually own the road but there's a developer

and landowners for the plot essentially has a right of access. My understanding is that

the Highways Authority and Aidsmere are part of the access road. Okay thank you.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:06:36

Councillor Nikki Ind - 1:06:38

Councillor Inge. Thank you again Chair. Looking at the, I'm just trying to find the condition

around construction. I think it's condition 7 where it says no development shall commence

until construction environmental plan is involved. Should this application be

approved, how strong can we be with our conditions given the

vulnerability of the residents of the care home? So if this was approved, you

know, clearly you don't need builders starting up machinery at seven o 'clock

in the morning, you don't need them going on Saturdays and Sundays, you don't need

in you know limiting the effect on those residents of the care home given their

Officer - 1:07:31

vulnerability most of them thank you. I would say that any restrictions need to

be necessary and reasonable so it would be a good idea to discuss with the

applicants in terms of what their expectations would be and then we can

consider how that would impact upon the residents and move forward in that

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:07:51

direction if that would be helpful. Yeah it might be useful if members were

minded to permit. Obviously we have condition 7 in there. If there was

something you were concerned that doesn't cover or something more it might be

worth discussing. I would recommend we agree that with the developer but

you could then delegate authority to us to go and have those discussions if we

know where members concerns are. We have that ability to delegate

effective authority to us to go and have those discussions and try and agree on

the committee's behalf.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:08:20

Then we will move on to members comments. Again I would ask you to be brief and not

repeat what already been said. But Councillor Basington and then Councillor

Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:08:34

Cowles. Thank you chair. Having listened to everything,

please come down to a balance. But on the balance I'm against this application and I'd

like to propose that we refuse it on the following foregrounds. It's outside the development

boundary, the impact on residents of a nursing home, no social housing provision and the

development is within the Cotswolds national landscape and its impact thereon.

The

Falls

Councillor David Fowles - 1:09:12

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:09:14

I just jump in obviously to a guide me

Sorry, Barry

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:09:20

Obviously, we can't refuse on the fact that it's outside the development boundary because ds4 does not carry full weight

It's an out -of -date policy

we then have to apply the tilted balance and the significantly and demonstrably harmful test.

Members, obviously you can discuss and decide if that is the route you want to go down,

but our refusal reason cannot simply be it is outside the development boundary and therefore contrary to DS4,

because that policy doesn't carry full weight.

But as I say, there are the other issues raised, you may want to discuss and decide if you, again,

applying that significantly and demonstrably and the wider planning balance.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:09:56

But yeah, I wouldn't recommend including that as a refusal reason, because that wouldn't be reasonable.

Council Coleman.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:10:02

Chair, in responding briefly but also the possible question for our chief officer, in

responding briefly to the four points in the proposal, it does seem to me that we are virtually

guaranteed to lose on every one of those four for the reasons that I think have been outlined

both in the papers and in answers.

That's not my wish.

I certainly agree that it's a poor use of the site in my view.

There should be at least 15 to 20 properties ideally

with 40 % affordable homes.

We're able to get 40 % affordable homes quite often on areas

with more than 10 properties and yet suddenly when we get

to 10, oh, it's totally impossible.

In passing, we would say that the impact on residents

in the nursing home is an important issue,

but substantially that is only for the period of construction.

I have never met an old person who objects to having a view of children at play, of people

coming and going.

It makes them reassured that they're not actually all on their own in their room.

It's a pretty lonely life.

Most of us have visited relatives and friends in nursing homes.

Some are good, some are great, some aren't.

It's the loneliness factor and the fact you lose the connect in my view.

Coming back to it, can we use as a ... Having the officers clearly feel that none of those

four reasons are strong and I tend to agree. But could we not use the view that it's a

rare opportunity to use national landscape land and therefore it's a wasteful use of

that land for only providing 10 dwellings. It clearly could provide more than 10 dwellings.

It's clearly being obviously only being used for 10 dwellings to avoid any costs to the

developer and any objections from locals perhaps to having some affordable property. So we

find that most people are in favour of more affordable properties in the Cotswolds. So

the key point is, is the efficient use of precious land an approach that we can use

along with the four other reasons that Councillor Brastenden has given?

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:12:12

Thank you.

Councillor Fowls, my apologies.

Councillor David Fowles - 1:12:19

I miss Johan the first time.

I know my place, Chairman.

Firstly, I'd like to, if I may, since it's under comments, I'd like to congratulate

the speakers, but in particular the objector, Carol Seagrove, who I thought spoke brilliantly

and identified all the issues that were concerning me and that's why we have it

here at this committee and I thought what Councillor Brassington was saying

about we should be mindful of the residents and the implications of those

it's not just about car movements in the world we live in today there are you

know not just refuse vehicles will be all sorts of other things that will be

delivered to that site I'm also very minded to acknowledge what Councillor

Coleman has said about possibly there may be a better use of this. The word

that kept on going through my head throughout this is it to paraphrase a

bridge too far this is a site too soon we've got the emerging local plan which

we can't take any account of. Moreton is going to be bombarded by more houses

plenty of affordable houses don't as worry about more than affordable houses

have got the potential of 2 ,000 houses coming up soon and I totally agree with

Councillor Brasington if we can make a robust reasons for refusal I totally

support him. I'd just like to comment on your deputy chairman if we want to limit

the effect on the residents of the care home deputy chairman let's just refuse

this application because that would limit it totally. We've got to remember

these are people who are very vulnerable these are people who are dying okay and

they've got their families and things there at the moment it is a wonderful

place and we joked about checking ourselves in there but the sentiment was

that it's a wonderful place to if you're going to be anywhere what a wonderful

place to be and I for one do not want to support an application that's going to

put ten bungalows right outside that site for all the planning reasons and

Rebecca you've given an excellent report thank you but I just feel totally

uncomfortable with it and I'm totally behind Councillor Brasington.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:14:26

Councillor Paul Evans - 1:14:29

Councillor Owens. Thank you and I listened with interest to both Councillor Coleman,

Councillor Brassington and Councillor Fowls' comments. I do absolutely take on board actually

is this the best use of a piece of land in Moreton in the development, outside of the

do question whether it is or not, or in fact whether there are other things and better

things that could be done with that that would provide affordable housing as a result. I

suppose it's really a question to officers. Is that a reason to say refuse this in and

of itself, not the best use of land?

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:15:16

Obviously members, you are the decision makers, I'm not here to put words in your mouth. In

my view, my professional opinion and my recommendation to you is it is a very weak reason to refuse

this application. I would refer you to paragraphs 129 and 130 of the MPPF which do relate to

making efficient use of land. They do give some credence to say to making efficient use

of lands to ensure that densities are appropriate,

but it is within context, and I think that's

quite important, so members might have to consider that.

Notwithstanding that, members are also gonna have

to consider, as I say, the significant

and demonstrable test.

That is effectively that even if you identify harm,

or even if you identify policy conflict,

that alone is not grounds to refuse application,

unless you consider that this is harmful

to the coastal national landscape.

I would point out our landscape consultant

has been consulted and has raised no objection.

Again, members, you're the decision makers,

but I would just remind you of that. It's probably worth reminding members of the three

recent appeals we lost as well. Obviously we lost the development in the Wern Lechelade,

that was where we raised conservation concerns. That was overcome not because the inspector

disagreed that there was harm, but because they give significant weight to the lack of

a housing land supply. That was overturned and allowed. Again, last week we lost the

Chipin -Camden Olympic Drive appeal, that was a landscape harm concern. Again, the inspector

came back and said there was moderate harm, albeit it didn't pass the threshold of the

statutory duty, again gave significant weight to the lack of housing and land supply and

allowed that appeal. Your decision makers, well and the third one which was the Morden

and Marsh one which was for various other reasons, but it's, if members are going to

go down that route, I think the first question to ask is do you consider there is significant

or harm to the Cotswolds National Landscape, to its special qualities and its character

that fails in the statutory duties

and in the local plan policies in five.

If you do, that in itself can engage the tilt,

or disengage the tilted balance,

could be a reason for refusal.

Again, bearing in mind the Olympic drive

and other appeals that bearing in mind

our own landscape officer has raised no objection,

I'd caution if you're going to go down that route,

but that's something I think for members to decide.

If you don't consider that,

I think you then need to consider

where your concerns are in terms of amenity,

where your concerns are in terms of efficient use of land,

and the other concerns you might raise,

and you then need to weigh them against the balance,

balance them in that process of the public benefit

or the benefits we have to attribute to the delivery

of housing against a significant shortfall,

1 .8 housing years.

The delivery of bungalows, which in themselves

we have an ageing population, they may not be designed

specifically for that, but again, they are a housing type

and a mix that we do require in an area.

Again, I'm not saying, but that is something to consider

for members as well in terms of housing mix.

equally this isn't a very good housing mix of, you know,

similar style properties.

My recommendation, I personally would have concerns

with going down the route of that is significantly

and demonstrably harmed from our ways to benefit,

but obviously that is for members as decision makers

to come to that view.

And it might be worth going through and asking yourself,

firstly, the cost of national landscape question,

and secondly, those other two points in terms of

the other harm to identify if you don't,

for you to satisfy yourself for the natural landscape harm.

But again, I think that's a process for you.

I am scribbling lots of notes.

I may need you to give me a little bit more and then we can wrap it up.

Is there anything I'm missing?

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:18:42

Thanks, Harry.

David and Paul, is your question regarding to the statement made by Arison?

David, please go ahead.

Councillor David Fowles - 1:18:57

My understanding is that we have some very professional and experienced officers and

I'm not in any way doubting that detail of that report or what Harrison has just said.

But quite often the reason that things come to this committee through the review panel

process is because it's felt that our job is to represent the residents and in

this case the people who live in and the relatives of the people in this care

home and Harrison's just heard and Rebecca the former chairman and an

officer of this council and the former vice chairman and a member of the

cabinet say that they have concerns about this site and so I'm not trying to

lead the meeting, but it seems to me that the committee have got major concerns and

that we're looking, Harrison, to you to give us some help in trying to clarify this. I

also was under the impression that when we sit here in committee, things like we haven't

got the five -year housing supply, and we all know that. We're working on an emerging local

plan which is going to hit the statute books imminently. And the other issue about the

threat of going to appeal, also we have to take that on board.

But when I hear that, it feels like I'm being threatened.

What I'm concerned about is I've got two people whom I have

very huge respect for, who have got a lot of experience,

and I feel very strongly that we should be looking to refuse

this application, and I'm left in a quandary, okay,

because the committee appears to be split,

and that's a worry for me in terms of the process.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:20:47

I would just like to comment. David, yes, we are here to listen to residents, but we're

also here in a quasi -judicial situation to act upon the planning law. We have to do both.

Paul?

Councillor Paul Evans - 1:21:11

Yes, I absolutely understand the difficulty we are in.

I have concerns, as I have articulated, on a whole bunch of things with this application,

but I am also equally mindful of planning law, as you say.

And on the balance of probability, if we were to refuse this, it feels that we would lose

an appeal which would come with cost to this authority and I could only express

my utter concerns and actually you know Esme a care home she's granting access

over a road that we know that will materially impact their residents

doesn't seem particularly good thing to do but there's loads of concerns here

but we are we have to be guided by planning law in the end unfortunately

until we have that five -year land supply which is obviously tomorrow's

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:22:10

tomorrow's matter. Yeah I'm cognizant of the fact that I've got a couple of hands

here but I again after the site visit we've had this in in the chamber before

we've heard from Harrison and I personally would like to support the

officers and propose that we permit this.

I think it's time that we had a vault on it.

We've gone backwards and forwards

and subject to the conditions that are set out.

I do take the fact that we've got seven.

I've got Paul, I think.

Patrick first.

Patrick and Ray.

Then Ray.

We do have to take his vote first, yeah.

We have to take the counter proposal first,

that you need to finish.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:23:02

I'm instructed I should take the counter proposal first.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:23:14

The proposal, sorry.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:23:22

Thank you very much. Unfortunately, we come back to this again and again. We have a discontinued,

I hoped, practise, disapproved of by the Planning Advisory Service who gave us our reviews of

trying to debate both for and against at the same time and then voting on them in that

order. Every other rules of debate I've ever been to is motion and amendment. If we do

One motion in amendment is possible to stay clearer and it also minimises the chance of

both proposals being defeated and us ending up in the old days, I don't know what it is

now, with proposals being repaired to full council and I achieved that more than months

in my old days.

Therefore, I would urge you, since you cannot move as an amendment a direct opposite to

a proposal, to deal with first the proposal from Councillor Bruttington and only if that

fails to take further proposals. I take this opportunity to say two more things. First

of all, if Councillor Brasington's proposal fails, I will move to approve the application

subject to conditions. And secondly, because I should have said it months ago, to urge

our chief officer to speak more slowly, more emphatically and more assortatively so that

we recall what he said. And I say this from a position who keeps having disagreements

with Councillor Bowery, with Officer Harrison.

When he wants to refuse things, I want to allow them.

I'm three -one up so far.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:24:48

Thank you. I'm just going to take advice on the procedure.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:25:06

The original proposed amendment was made by Ray, seconded by Councillor Fowles.

Can we clarify it?

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:25:26

Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:25:32

Could you make your proposal again please Ray?

In light of what Harrison said, I think we need to amend it.

Obviously I accept everything you say.

Obviously we'll have to delete outside development boundaries for a reason.

and I think we also need to delete the fact that it impact on the Cotswolds

national landscape. So that would just leave two items which is impact on the

residents of the nursing home and no social housing provision. So it's

Council Fowls will second that or not.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:26:32

So impacts and residents of the home, we can refer to EM1 and EM2, which both refer to

residential immunity, and paragraph 135 of the MPPF, which again talks about immunity

of all users. Again, we can draught something for members and we can always agree with the

chair. Are you happy to delegate that to officers to draught? In terms of the lack of affordable

housing, are you able to give me an indication of the policy conflict or any that you're

– because, again, I'm not trying to guide you or steer you, but I'm struggling just

with a – we can refer to policy H2, which does say that we must consider the changes

in terms of viability when it's questioned or challenged,

albeit it does go through that process

of the independent review.

Again, it's obviously for members to put a grant weight

to, you know, what weight you grant to viability,

but it would be useful if you could maybe just guide me a

little bit more on where the concerns

and the policy conflict are, just so I can make sure

I'm recording that, because, yeah, I refer to sort of H2 .6

of policy H2 as a good starting point,

but I might just need a little bit more guidance from you

in terms of where the policy conflicts and the part is.

So I can then sort of formulate something

if that'd be possible.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:27:45

Council Coleman.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:27:48

Thank you, Chair.

Listening to that point,

is there any benefit we might gain from suggesting

that this was an inefficient use

through an inadequate number of properties

for a type of land, national landscape, for which only very small and occasional exceptions

can be made to its normal overall protection.

Those aren't necessarily the right planning words.

I've never heard the argument used before and it may carry no weight, but it's part

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:28:25

of why I sympathise with what's being said.

I'd avoid falling into a prematurity of the local plan argument.

I didn't say that.

No, no, that's fine.

No, you didn't say that, but just more just to distinguish.

You could, again, I could refer you to MPPF paragraph 129,

which talks about making efficient use of land.

So there is the argument that the land,

it's a low density scheme that could achieve more density

and therefore could deliver affordable housing

and therefore the, you know, you're granting less weight

to the viability person for that reason.

Again, for members to decide if that's an approach,

but yeah, paragraph 129, I'd look at policy H2

if you're going down that route,

but that's probably something for members to look and decide.

But no, yes, you could certainly include that.

But yeah, I'd refer to those, that paragraph and that policy,

if that's the route you choose to go down.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:29:09

Councillor Bassington, you're happy to propose on that basis?

Happy to second?

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:31:06

David?

Sorry.

Have a comfort break.

Yeah, five minutes, please.

Thank you.

Councillor David Fowles - 1:31:21

Please don't speak to any residents or applicants.

8 25/02443/FUL - Land to the West of Fosseway Farm, Moreton-In-Marsh

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:31:23

We're ready to restart.

But I bring some good news.

The door downstairs is now fixed and open so you can leave the building by going down the stairs just here.

And moving rapidly on, we come to the

9 25/02960/FUL - Shoecroft Barn, Ablington, Bibury

BIBRI applications that application 9 is what we start application 9 I would

I start off with the officer's report.

Officer - 1:32:11

Thank you, Chair.

So this application was considered by planning committee back in May and that that meeting

members expressed concerns regarding highway and pedestrian safety matters and drainage and

deferred determination to allow the submission

of further transport evidence.

So this application seeks planning permission

for the conversion of the ground floor of Shoecroft barn

from a general storage to a cafe

with an ancillary retail area together with alterations

to the existing lean -to structure,

the creation of a decking and patio area

and associated works.

The application site forms part of the wider Bybury trout farm complex.

It's located within the Bybury Conservation Area, the national landscape, and includes

a Grade 2 listed barn.

So here's the site location plan, so you can see where the barn is.

Shewcroft Barn is situated on the northwestern edge of Bybury, adjacent to Ablington Lane,

and the site comprises a historic converted barn

and associated outbuildings.

It's currently used for commercial purposes,

connected with the trout farm

with residential accommodation above.

Planning permission has already been granted

for a caffing gift shop,

else we're within the site that was of new build

under a previous planning permission,

which remains extant and capable of implementation.

but the current proposal seeks to provide a cafe of a similar size within

the Shoe Cross barn itself rather than constructing a new

building. So here we go on this slide you can see that that area highlighted is

the proposed barn conversion. You can see part of the wider

trout farm complex there and you can see to the north the car park area that

serves this facility so people who would access the barn would and the cafe

would park normally in that car park and then walk down and cross the lane into

the wider trout farm complex. Here's a drawing here of it so the access

route at the top towards the car park and then the route down to the barn

itself. Here are the elevations of the barn. The site lies within an area

experience of significant visitor activity associated with the bybury and

trout farm and following deferral of the application the applicant submitted the

transport impact assessment. The report sought to demonstrate that the proposed

cafe would generate fewer white vehicle trips than the extant cafe permission

granted elsewhere on the trout farm which I mentioned earlier. However,

Gloucestershire County Council Highways advised that trip generation is

not the principal concern. The highway's position is that insufficient

information has been provided to demonstrate that safe and suitable

access can be achieved for all users. The highway notes that significant

pedestrian access occurs along Ableton Lane,

so from the track film off towards,

across the route and up into the village

where pedestrians and vehicles are required

to share constrained carriageway.

The authority concludes that insufficient evidence

has been submitted to demonstrate

the proposal can operate safely.

And following review of the additional information

that was submitted following the committee deferral,

the highway authority has maintained its objection.

So that's the building that could be converted to the cafe.

There's the layout there so you can see that the kitchen would be in a single storey side element.

And then the wider, which is a modern construction, and then the historic listed barn would form part of the seating area and the retail element.

There's the photo of the rear of the barn.

That's the side extension that would be converted into the kitchen area.

Side elevation there, looking down from the lane.

The front of the barn looking up as existing.

You can see the residential accommodation above.

Just another shot there of the front. This is an area to the front of an outbuilding.

And there we go, looking across the back of that outbuilding towards the bar.

And then this is the main pedestrian access route off the lane down into the trout farm,

which is the route that people take from the car park down into the facility.

And there we go looking across the lane towards the main village.

And then that's the view up to the car park.

And that's the car park.

So now I visited last week and it was a lot busier than that.

This is very busy, but this is obviously an off -season photograph.

So, officers acknowledge that the proposal would support an established rural business,

provide further diversification of the trout farm, secure viable use for a listed builder,

and preserve identified heritage assets.

However, the application has not demonstrated that safe and suitable access can be achieved for all users.

The highway authority maintains a full objection,

advises that key pedestrian safety evidence remains absent.

So whilst officers consider the principle of development,

heritage impacts, residential amenity impacts,

biodiversity and national landscape impacts

to be acceptable, the application ultimately depends

on the issue of highway safety and pedestrian safety.

Following the submission of additional transport information

after commission deferral, Gloucestershire County Council,

highways has maintained its objection and officers are enabled to conclude

that safe and suitable access has been demonstrated. The recommendations before

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:39:01

members is therefore one of refusal. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. At

this point I would like to invite the speakers to come forward. I have two as

ward member is Councillor David Fowles and I have Michelle Follett -Holt. I only have

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:40:06

David.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:40:12

I was going to say thank you, Chairman. The Chairman of the Parish Council did request

that his name was included, so I'm delighted that you've dealt with that.

Yeah, no problem.

Thank you, David.

I'm going to start off with the Town of Polish Council.

As before, there's three minutes.

It will be timed, and I'll give you a quick word, 15 seconds before the end.

Town/Parish Council - 1:40:41

Okay, I'm Craig Chapman, Chair of Bybury Parish Council. I speak on behalf of the

Parish Council who strongly object to this application. I will focus on one

overriding issue which has already been put forward, highway safety, which applies

equally to the full and the LBC applications that I will only speak once.

The Parish Council supports the view of Matthew Jop, the GCC principal highway

development officer, who on the 13th of July recommended that the full

application is refused on the basis that the applicant has failed to demonstrate

that safe and suitable access can be achieved for all users. That the site

relies upon pedestrian movement along Ablington Lane, a constrained rural road

with no dedicated pedestrian infrastructure, where evidence

demonstrates substantial pedestrian activity and shared use of the

carriageway with vehicles. Insufficient evidence has been submitted to

demonstrate that pedestrian accessibility and pedestrian safety have

been adequately assessed or that any resulting highway safety impacts have

been shown to be acceptable or capable of mitigation to an acceptable degree. So

that's the comment by Matthew Job. I think it was clearly identified from the

site visit you previously made. Ablington Lane is a narrow rural lane with inadequate

passing points and sharp bends. It has no proper pedestrian provision along key sections

and is already under severe pressure from existing trout farm visitors and wider tourism.

It is used with difficulty by residents, agricultural service and emergency vehicles, although not

shown very well on the images that we'll put up earlier. The Parish Council has

already stated that the lane is frequently gridlocked, the verges are

being eroded and that there is constant conflict between traffic and

pedestrians. We have also highlighted that the trout farms car parks are often

full to overflowing causing frustration, obstruction and danger for residents and

visitors. The following points are clear. The proposed developments will primarily

be served from Ablington Lane as this is where the trout farm's current car parking facilities

are located. Whilst it is not practical to control how customers will otherwise access

the cafe. A separately accessed cafe and retail unit will attract people in its own right.

This is a commercial venture based on 70 plus seats and it is inevitable that this will

result in increased vehicle and pedestrian movement on Abblingson Lane.

It will also require servicing and increased parking dwell time with

vehicles occupying spaces for longer, putting more pressure on car parks and

overall and more overspill onto roads and verges. Bybury is already struggling

under the traffic consequences of

over tourism. Please give proper weight to the objections indicated and refuse this application.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:44:24

Thank you very much. I go on now to Ms Follett -Holt.

Objector - 1:44:35

And when you're ready, the speaker will start.

Thank you, Chair and members.

I'm a resident of Bybury and Chair of Bybury Heritage,

and I'm speaking today on the full application

for Chewcroft Barn on behalf of over 100 local residents who

have objected.

In May this year, the committee deferred the application

because the evidence was insufficient.

The applicant has since had the opportunity to address these concerns,

but Gloucestershire Highways have reviewed the additional material

and strengthened its objection and now recommends refusal in the strongest terms.

Your case officer has reached the same conclusion.

The applicant says that this café may be smaller than the previously permitted café

and may generate fewer trips.

But fewer trips does not mean safe access.

That's the crucial point.

As you well know, Ablington Lane has no continuous pedestrian

infrastructure linking Shoecroft Barn with parking areas,

the village and other attractions.

At peak periods, pedestrians already share a narrow

carriageway with vehicles.

There is still no proper assessment of pedestrian routes,

pedestrian vehicle conflict, disabled access, peak period conditions or

necessary mitigation. The applicant also claims that moving the cafe close to the

car park would improve safety but there is no pedestrian survey or behavioural

analysis to prove it. Highways consider that argument and

maintain its objection. Members deferred this application for evidence. The

evidence needed to demonstrate safe access.

That evidence has not been provided.

Other deferred matters also remain concerning.

The so -called commercial kitchen risk assessment is simply a

generic scoring table and examples, not a completed

Shucroft assessment.

It gave no site -specific discharge assessment, odour

control requirements, or noise assessment.

On foul drainage, the case officer report relies on the applicant saying the barn is connected to the mains network.

There is no site -specific evidence showing that the sewer network can accommodate this cafe,

despite members specifically requesting evidence on sewage capacity when they deferred it.

There is also an

accuracy issue around ecology. The biodiversity

self -assessment answered no to a river being within a hundred metres of the

site yet the submitted mapping places the river called about 25 metres away

your own officer reports describing the site as adjacent to the river members

should be able to rely on environmental information being based on accurate

understanding of the site this does not appear to be the case you do not need

new refusal reasons today. The published highway reason is clear. Safe access has not been

demonstrated. This application has already had its second chance. Please refuse it as

recommended. Thank you very much. David, I'm going to move

across to you. You have five minutes. Chairman, could I beg your indulgence for

I wanted to speak on both the planning application and on the listed building

consent and since I'm going to be leaving the room for the advice from

Mary was I should speak on both now I don't think the other speakers are

speaking on the listed building consent so no they aren't so could I speak

firstly on the full planning application and on a list of building consent and

and then leave. I will take an executive decision, David, and allow that. Thank you, Cem. Firstly,

I would like to thank the UK's officer for the way she has ably grabbed this application

and revisited it. I think you have done an excellent job. Thank you very much. That is

not just because you're recommending a refusal to take.

Thank you very much for that.

And also to the committee,

because it's one of those rare occasions

where you deferred something

Ward Member - 1:49:11

and it's come back with additional information,

which I think is extremely relevant

for the decision that's being taken.

As you've heard from Bybury Heritage

and the parish council, this application was deferred in May

because despite the information provided by the applicant,

the committee felt very strongly

that it had not been provided with sufficient information,

particularly on highways to determine the application. It's also worth noting

if I may that at that meeting in May the committee actually refused the officer's

recommendation and then we got a bit confused as residents because it then

went to another vote which was all about deferring and we needed to clarify that

because it's just something that people didn't understand. We refused it and then

deferred it but Harrison did eloquently explain that to me. Thank you.

The committee requested more information specifically in respect of traffic and highway safety.

Matthew from Gloucester Highways, as Craig has already said, has left the committee in no doubt over their concerns about Abington Lane and have written a very strongly worded letter.

As members know from the site meeting when we walked down Abington Lane, that despite occasional parking spaces, the road is frequently gridlocked,

which is made worse by the fact that if you look at the number of 4x4s that are out there at the moment,

they are a lot wider than cars were previously, and so too electric vehicles,

and we now have quite a lot of minibusses using that road. This all adds to the conjunction.

Most importantly, there is no safe continuous pedestrian access from the car park

to Shoecroft barn to the trout farm and to the village as a whole and its other

attractions, which means that pedestrians have to run the gauntlet along the highway.

Running in parallel with this, as you would have seen from the national press, the application

is being involved alongside a huge exercise led by Gloucester County Council under the

umbrella of Bybury One, where all the stakeholders, the parish council, local businesses, Bybury

heritage are looking at the whole issue of over tourism in

Bybury and looking at ways that we can actually reduce traffic congestion

particularly coaches and by default encouraging smaller vehicles to to come

along. It's also worth noting if you know the geography of the Colm Valley that

it's not just the Abington Lane in Bybury that's the issue if you drive

along that lane it's the only access to and from the Fosse Way and the road is

incredibly narrow all the way along.

And I was there this weekend, and on two occasions,

I found it quite difficult to stay on the road.

Not a reflection of my driving, it's just a very,

very narrow lane.

This is a very dangerous situation, and it's

exacerbated by the fact that many of the pedestrians,

and indeed the drivers, are actually foreign,

and therefore they're not familiar with our country lanes.

On three occasions in the last year, I've actually got out of my car to help a Japanese tourist park their cars,

because they didn't know how to.

I mean, it's a really serious problem. It's just that on a number of vehicles, it's the type of people who are having to drive them.

As you've also heard, the application was also deferred because we were looking at further information on ecology,

foul drainage, and potential environmental health issues, which Michelle has already referred to.

So, as far as I'm concerned, I totally support the officer's recommendation for refusal

and urge the committee to consider the information from highways and to support the officer's

recommendation.

Thank you, David.

This piece was for the first application, now moving on to the second application.

Whenever you're ready, Dave will start.

Yeah, thank you.

Again, I'd like to thank Rebecca because we were concerned as a community and I was

concerned as the board member that we have a situation where

the officer is recommending approval for the list of building consent on this building and yet

recommending refusal for the full planning application and at first sight this seems a bit tautological.

I also accept that the reasons for recommended refusal on the full planning application

centre primarily on highway safety and the impact the proposed use of the building would have

in terms of increased use of highway by vehicles and pedestrians.

So the grounds for refusal on the full planning application do not apply, obviously, to the application of listed building consent.

The case officer makes it very clear in her report that the proposed works would present a significant,

would work well for the listed building and its heritage. Therefore

the applicant can carry out the works on the building but would not have full

planning permission to implement the proposed use of the building which is a

bit strange. My concern is it seems a bit crazy that we're in this situation and

although I can't take part in the discussion that's going to take place

my concern and that of the wider community is if listed building

consent is granted, could we at some point in the future have this in some

way impacting on a further planning application? So if you're minded to

accept the officer's recommendation to approve listed building consent, could it

please be written into that approval that the full planning application was

refused if you do support the officer's recommendation? Just in case we have a

direction travel with regards to approval on the list of building consent.

Thank you very much, Chairman. Thank you, Councillor Fowles. I believe you're going to

recluse yourself now? Yes, only because I happen to know the applicant. Thank you.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:55:17

So we are still on the first application.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:55:29

Councillor Fowles is going to leave us now.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

There was a site inspection visit to the trout farm.

And would anybody like to comment on what they council end.

Councillor Nikki Ind - 1:56:00

Thank you chair. Yes, must have been a couple of months ago now we had this site inspection.

The road is particularly dangerous. We did walk along there's a little way which isn't

a proper path but people use it as a path and then that disappears and you are walking

in a lane with traffic coming towards you. I think we got down as far as the Swan and

stood there only to find a huge coach reversing towards us and so yeah a very

very difficult lane. There was the planning when we saw the presentation

from Rebecca there there was a car parking area which is over the road and

there was also a parking area which isn't official by the barn currently and

maybe that's the questions later as to whether anything's changed there but the

actual access itself up and down was really very tricky very tricky

additional comments or comes Coleman

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:57:11

Thank You chair yes I think the point that I was reinforced for me because it

the first time I had been on that lane was that the traffic was so slow moving and so

persistent that the danger of the traffic was very apparent and the speeds were so slow

that it was very unlikely that anybody was going to get hurt. Although this isn't part

of the site visit recollection.

It occurred to me that if anybody could find an accident

record involving an injury for that stretch of lane,

it might not have as many injuries on it

as we might think it would given how obvious the conflict

between pedestrians and vehicles is.

But fortunately, we have a clear thinking highway authority

who's saying something entirely different and very sensible

when we come to the debate.

Thank you.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:58:13

Thank you. Any other comments? I will just say that I'll come to you in a moment. I attended, I

share Councillor Inge's view. I know Bybury of course and the road network is

seriously overused and especially around that area. I was quite nervous walking

down towards, I think it's a Swan Hall top. I was quite nervous walking down from the

trout farm to the Swan Hall. That was my personal impression.

Councillor Paul Evans - 1:58:50

Councillor Evans.

Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to clarify something that I think Councillor Fowls said.

Councillor Fowls said, I think, that we refused the application last time and then voted to

that's not my recollection my recollection was that we voted down a

motion to refuse it and instead moved to defer I wonder if Harrison or officers

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:59:15

can clarify yes it was a little while ago but yes from memory there was a

proposal I think there's a proposal to support the officer recommendation to

and then that was voted down by members and it then moved to a motion to defer

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:59:28

the item which was agreed thank you thank you very much for that

clarification are there any questions for the officer

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:59:38

Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:59:46

Councillor Bessington on page 61 at the bottom it says an application for a

cafe gift shop was permitted in 2024 is this is this the same building no I did

touch on it briefly in my presentation but just to be a bit more explicit

consent was granted for a new new build facility further up the road in 2023 I

think so this is this would be an altered applicant says this would be an

alternative facility and indeed the agent has argued that it would be an

alternative facilities so that they wouldn't be any greater harm but the

Highways Authority have looked at his submission based on that argument and

said that it's not enough he needs to provide information on how road users

and pedestrians would interact on that route irrespective of whether there's

another consent which is extant just a little bit further into the trout farm

site. Thank you. The second question is if is the cafe would it would the cafe be

open to people who are not part of the byway trout farm i .e. ordinary members

of the public just walking and not paying to go down the trout farm? My

understanding is it would be an open cafe for anyone to visit. It's presented

as in conjunction with the trout farm but my understanding is that there

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:01:20

wouldn't be any restriction on use. Okay thank you.

Councillor Daryl Corps - 2:01:24

Council Cawl. Thank you. So it's been deferred once and that's to give the

applicant what the opportunity to answer highways concerns. Have you had anything

submitted that I haven't seen anything anything that's been submitted that

gives you in any any sort of stronger confidence that this isn't as dangerous

as we as we're starting to see and give sort of any confidence really that pedestrians

Officer - 2:02:01

can access the site any any safer than previously. So the agent was given the

opportunity to submit further information. He submitted a transport

statement which concentrated more on the the comparison of uses between the

cafe consent and this one. So highways have looked at it and said

there's an absence of information to satisfy that vehicles, pedestrians could

interact and safe people could access that facility safely. So in the absence

of anything to demonstrate that highway safety would be acceptable, the

Highways Authority have objected maintaining the objection and we support

Councillor Daryl Corps - 2:02:48

that. And it's your recommendation or refusal hasn't hasn't changed at all

Officer - 2:02:51

from previously. There's nothing more that's come up that would give us any

confidence. No there's been some to and fro in and some discussion and

there's nothing further submitted since the last committee that has changed the

highways officers views on that no

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:03:07

Councillor Nikki Ind - 2:03:10

council end and Thank You chair just a couple of questions so one is around the

parking area so when I did the site visit we parked in an area which wasn't

an official car park and the gate was left over open whilst we were doing our

walk around the site and when we came back it was full of people and I believe

that there was some sort of planning permission plan for them and I might so

my question is is there planning permission for that other car park on

the other side of the road which is on the side of the road of the barn and the

second question is and I apologise if I've missed it previously there was

going to be a condition that should this be approved that the other cafe it would

Officer - 2:04:07

be one or the other not both is that still the case yes I understand I think

that the other car park that you're referring to is sort of further down the

road towards by Bri on at the behind the bar yes yeah so my own the barn and

directly opposite so you go up the lane and the barns here and then you've got

the car park here but there's another piece of land just there yeah so I think

the theory of land you're referring to is actually a staff car park I've been

told because when I went last week that was sectioned off so wasn't accessible

Councillor Nikki Ind - 2:04:45

to anybody. I'm just gonna say I don't think it's an official car park I do I

think it's a field and so I think there was some sort of application but I just

wondered if there's still a live planning application. Okay perfect.

Officer - 2:05:03

Was it one or the other? Sorry. Yes certainly the agent has presented it as

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:05:13

this being a replacement consent for the other one. Excuse me.

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:05:22

Thank you. Excuse me, sir, but not allowed to interrupt proceedings.

Any more questions specific to this case before we go on to comments on the vote?

Then it is the application 25 stroke 02960 full. The officer's recommendation is to refuse. Are there any comments?

Patrick?

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:05:56

Chair, thank you. Proposed the officer's recommendation.

Do I have a seconder?

Councillor Paul Evans - 2:06:05

I'll second it along with a comment that I'm

relieved to see that I think our gut instinct and the feelings that I heard during that site visit are borne out by

highways.

Statements in this deferred proposal. So thank you.

to officers concerned?

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:06:25

In that case, I think we can, Tyler, you ready for the vote?

10 25/02961/LBC - Shoecroft Barn, Ablington, Bibury

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:06:55

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:07:06

That is unanimous. The application is refused. We go on now to the next on our list and we

again. In Barbary. This is the application 25 stroke 02961 stroke LBC. I would like I

Officer - 2:07:42

invite the officer to start us off on this application. Thank you chair. So this

is the list of building application which accompanied the planning

application which you just considered. It's a bit of an unusual situation

because the officer recommendation was for refusal of the planning application

but the listed building applications recommended for approval. So I just

thought I'd start off by explaining how that works because it's called some

questions. So listed building consent and planning application consent

applications are separate applications each of which must be assessed against

different considerations. So the recommendation to refuse planning

permission relates the related to the impact of the proposal highway safety

and it is considered that the proposed use of the building would result in an

and acceptable impact on highway safety terms.

But in terms of the listed building consent application,

this is concerned with the effect of the proposed works

on the special architectural historic interests

of the listed building.

And in this case, it's considered the proposed alterations

would preserve the significance of the listed building

and therefore acceptable in heritage terms.

Consequently, while the proposed use

is not considered acceptable for planning reasons,

the physical works themselves

are considered acceptable in listed building terms. In practical terms the

applicant could carry out the works to the listed building if consent were

granted but they would not have planning permission to implement the proposed use.

So moving on to more details of the application. The application was

considered in the Planning Committee back in May and members deferred the

application because more information was wanted on kitchen operations,

particularly extraction systems, ventilation arrangements, flues and ducts

and some clarification on foul sewage and drainage capacity. There was concern

that the committee had insufficient detail to understand the physical

implications of these elements on the list of building and how the cafe would

function. So committee concerns regarding flues, extraction equipment, ventilation

arrangements. The applicant submitted additional information

showing that. So if I go into the picture. So the applicant submitted technical

details that showed that the cooker hood would be ducted through the wall. So the

proposed kitchen is in that single -storey more modern extension to the side. So the

proposed duct would go through the wall of that and I'll show you on the next

slide wear. The extraction would terminate in the 20 centimetre square external

grill and the grill will be coloured to match the timber cladding and it will be

positioned between building elements and be largely screened from public view. So

if I show you on the next screen, if you can see where the kitchen is on there

which is a single storey extension to the side between the projection where

you can see tables drawn in.

There's a little void area there,

and that's where that,

the infrastructure related to extraction would go.

So this is a discrete location.

The infrastructure would be modest in scale

and sympathetic to the appearance of the listed building.

The extraction arrangement would not harm

the special architectural historic interests

of the listed building.

The conservation officer reviewed the revised details

and raised no objection.

There are also concerns about foul drainage

and potential sewage matters relating to the cafe,

but drainage matters are primarily related

to operation of use rather than the effect

on the listed building.

So drainage is not a matter that weighs against

granting listed building consent.

Notwithstanding the applicant advised that the building

is already connected to the main sewer

and sewer capacity issues fall within the responsibility

of the statutory undertaker.

So to conclude, the proposed conversion works

to make the list of building into the cafe

would preserve the special architectural historic interest

of the grade two listed building,

would preserve the character appearance

of the conservation office area

and provide a viable ongoing use for the building.

There would be no heritage harm by the proposed works and therefore on this

basis there's recommended that listed building consent be

granted. Now coming back to Councillor Cowles's earlier comments he mentioned

about could there be something on any consent if it's granted to refer back to

the refusal of the plan and application and I would advise that we could include

an advisory note if you are minded to go with the officer recommendation so that

any decision notice clearly states that the the use of the cafe has not been

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:13:05

granted planning consent. Thank you. Thank you Rebecca. On the speakers list

Councillor Fowls the local member has already spoken. I do have Michelle

Councillor O 'Farrell, would you like to speak on this one?

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:13:26

Thank you very much. Then for members, questions for the officer?

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:13:37

Councillor Coleman. Thank you, Chair. Is it the case that overall

the changes proposed will as far as can be judged by our professional

conservation listed building team is it the case that there is a net improvement

or that overall there's no significant improvement or detriment as a result of

Officer - 2:14:03

this work? Well the time says the building's currently a storage area so

refurbish the building and do those works I guess would secure the long -term

future of it but whether there's a huge benefit to it of the list of building

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:14:34

is another question but there's no objections to the works. Any other

questions then I think we'll move on to comments before we go to a vote on this

would anybody like to comment on this

Councillor Michael Vann - 2:14:54

I'm really puzzled.

Here we are.

We have already refused 7mil, a planning application to utilise this building as a cafe, but we're

to allow the work to carry out.

This means that one perhaps needs to be vigilant to make sure that the place is not used as a café.

So that's how I'm puzzled.

Thank you, Michael. Councillor Evans.

Councillor Paul Evans - 2:15:47

Okay, Councillor van has stolen my words exactly. I'm a little puzzled as well.

Yeah, I can see the conundrum and the obvious inconsistency here in recommending and recommending for approval of a listed building consent

and then not actually being able to use it as a cafe.

And I would be mindful if we did move to vote this

because we have no grounds for turning it down,

that we caveat this as much as we possibly can to ensure

that it cannot be used as a cafe unless it comes back

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:16:33

to this committee for approval again.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:16:39

Councillor Bratinton. Just got to say we're dealing with two different things here.

One's a planning application and one's a listing building consent so we can

approve one and refuse the other so there's no confusion.

Councillor Nikki Ind - 2:16:50

Councillor End. Yeah just to reiterate what my colleagues have said I think

conditions are going to be really important with this application because

Councillor Brastinton said you know there's no reason for us not to consent

and I think if we went to appeal we would lose it but I think that we would

definitely need a condition on there that this building wouldn't be able to

be used as a cafe as bizarre as that sounds because it has not been planted

not been granted any planning permission and I yeah I don't know how we how we

can be robust and what we would need to make sure is that the authority are

robust in their enforcement of this so that it doesn't slip through the cracks.

This building hasn't been granted it and it would need to have a change of use or

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:17:43

I don't know can we have change of use or is this already change of use?

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:17:50

I'm going to turn to our excellent planning officers if you could suggest a condition that we might consider.

I feel like I'm saying no a lot of it today.

You can't put a condition on the list of building consent that relates to a change of use because

they are separate regimes. They need listed building consent for the change of use, you

need planning permission for it. We still need planning permission, the list of building

consent cannot supersede the planning permission. We can place an informative on it which is

more of an advisory note, setting out that this grant was subject to the list of building

However, it does not supersede the planning application that has been

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:18:27

refused. So the use is not there for committee. We can work something out on those lines, but it would have to be an informative, not a condition.

Thank you very much indeed, Harry. I am

personally content in the knowledge that the this listed building consent is in

my mind fairly positive and if there is a future change of views it would have

to come back to this chamber at some point.

Councillor Paul Evans - 2:18:58

Councillor Evans. Thank you chair. I just just on that is is from up for my

information is listed building consent enforcement under the same regime as as

planning enforcement because we know that we have a backlog and whilst we are

working very hard to address it. Nonetheless we still have a backlog so I

would want some confidence that we're simply not allowing the building to be

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:19:28

changed and then there is no route to stop any use as a cafe. It's a

similar investigation process, there's slightly different tools at the end of

it. An enforcement notice is slightly different to a list of

buildings and enforcement notice additionally works for a list of

buildings sent without consent is a crime so that you could in theory

prosecuted for that separately because yeah it's a criminal offence as opposed

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:19:48

to planning which isn't necessarily unless Mari wants to.

Legal Services - 2:19:50

Mari? No if I can just come in that if they were to operate as a cafe that

would be under planning enforcement not listed building enforcement the listed

building enforcement would be a breach of any works that they're doing that's

why they're separate separate regimes. Thank you. Thank you that that really

Councillor Paul Evans - 2:20:11

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:20:12

helps my understanding every day is a school day in this committee. Thank you.

Councillor Daryl Corps - 2:20:18

Councillor Caul? This is purely a structural heritage issue opposed to the

last application which was obviously some material reasons. Then I think I

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:20:28

would like to propose that we accept the recommendation of the officer and to

consent to this application.

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:21:18

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:21:21

recommendation consent is unanimously approved.

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:21:47

Moving swiftly on, we're picking up tempo as we go along here, which is good.

11 26/01237/REM - Land South West of Alexander Drive and East of the Maples, Cirencester

The next application I've got on the list is 26 stroke 0 1 2 3 7 stroke REM.

It's land southwest of Alexander Drive and east of the Maples in Sirencester.

Our legal officer has left the room as her property backs onto this area.

As soon as the officer is comfortable in his chair, we can start.

Yeah, whenever you're ready, take your time.

Thank you, Chair.

Good afternoon.

So chair, this is a proposal for reserve matters approval pursuant to the outline planning

commission for development at the steadings, my reference to the project, and this is reserve

matters for a sub phase, sub phase 2D of the development as you can see on the

screen for the development direction 129 dwellings. It includes the temporary

ground floor use of one of those buildings which I'll come on to for

community purposes and also additional and related landscaping and public open

space. And in doing so the reserve matters application seeks to discharge

that list of conditions you can see on the screen, which I'm not going to read out, but I've listed for you,

and if you are interested, I can come back to you, but a number of planning conditions, again, which was set out

by the outline planning permission, which you and other members may recall, and you also may recall a few months ago,

dealing with a previous sub -phase of this. So it's a series of sub -phases which will come forward and continue to come forward,

Which are essentially in context and accordance with that outline approval, but just to give you a little bit of context

That's what the outline planning permission is for

Again, I'm not going to go through all of that, but you'll recall

It's setting is important strategic site for the council and housing delivery and it's up to two thousand three hundred fifty

Homes new homes along with and those are the things which you know is the opportunity for?

a very high quality and important extension to the existing town of

Sire and Cessna. You might also recall chair that all matters of that outline

permission were reserved except for access and so what we're dealing with

essentially those reserved matters that is layout scale appearance and

landscaping by virtue of this submission.

As a general reminder, you will see on there,

that is one of the parameter plans,

which is approved as part of the outline

planning permission, the outline planning framework.

The sub phase, which will become a little bit clearer,

hopefully on the subsequent plan,

but is towards the phase two,

which is the Eastern part of the site

and put simply those areas shown

in the sort of light yellowish colour is where development blocks will come

forward and have already and clearly those areas outlined in green

demonstrate future green infrastructure open space for the future residents of

the development and the existing residents of the additional community

of the existing community.

Again, just briefly, as part of the outline planning framework,

the whole series of documents, phasing plan, and an idea of the

numbers of dwellings, which, I know they might come forward.

This might be a little bit clearer, but you'll recall

previously in the year, we, you and members considered subphase

2A, which is there.

So this is subphase 2D and it's kind of related there.

So all part of phase two.

And overall you'll see what was indicative at the time as part

of the outline planning permission, the phasing plan,

was, you know, phase two could provide circa just over 600

dwellings that may or may not come to bear.

But it's a significant part of the overall development.

And again, just to clarify that you'll probably know, Chern,

you may well have seen it, that subphase 1A, which is the first

subphase, is essentially complete and I think all

occupied now as well.

So there's a kind of opportunity, if you like, to see

how these subphases are coming forward as each subphase is

Officer - 2:27:14

brought forward and delivered, which is important to us in

terms of consistency and quality.

There is, as was set out in the outline planning approval, a

like some high -level rules on quality and how the scheme should be developed

and some principles on how that the physical development of the sites sub

phases should come forward and one of the requirements of the outline plan

permission was that further each sub phase or phase of development should

also be subject to a detailed design code. Such a detailed design code was

was approved, chair by your officers in the spring of last year, that adds further

detail and certainty if you like about some of the components of quality of

design that come forward that might deal with some of those things. I've listed

parking, focal building spaces, architectural sort of form and

treatment and so on as is required by the outline planning framework. So we've

gone through that process. I should say as well chair that this is a

continuation of a collaborative approach with the applicants, with the development company

via a planning performance agreement, which enables your officers to continue that very

collaborative approach.

And what you see here today has been subject to quite extensive consideration of pre -application

stage as well as through the application itself, which I think certainly enables those components

quality to be met and considered with a great degree of detail. So the detailed

design code covers both subphases 2D and E and I've outlined that in red which I

don't think you can miss given the given the line. So subphase 2D, key issues, layout

scale, appearance, landscaping and some of those other things which kind of come

via that so layout also leads us to consider the hierarchy of streets and

movement, form and appearance kind of go hand in hand and chair also more

recently with 2a I know members are very interested quite rightly in in the future

environmental performance. Again there's a lot of detail contained within the

outline permission but I want to give assurance to you and members that

environmental performance, sustainability, the quality of the scheme as it moves

forward is essentially doing the right things and actually

exceeding what current regulations require, which I

think is the right way to go and it's consistent with decisions

that we've all, that you and members have already made.

So briefly, if I can give you some further assurance on the

iteration of subphase 2D and that process which we've undertaken,

very constructively I should say, Chair, with the applicant

and their team has led to a number of refinements along the way over the

previous months that process and I think refinement is the correct description.

You'll note that the applicant here has already developed subphase 1a the one I

mentioned is complete so they have experience of delivery on this site and

of going through this kind of process with your officers and that builds

confidence as well. But there have been some refinements and revisions. I'm not

going to go through, I've noted on the plan there where some of those might

apply. But they've been sort of relatively minor if you like in terms

of the discussions we had at pre -application stage. But there's been

some refinements to the alignment, the layout, to parking in amenity areas, to

some of the more detailed design and consideration of some of the

architectural components of the dwellings. All of which, Chair has given

your office is greater confidence that this application this reserve matters

application is is a good one and therefore could be brought forward today

with the recommendation just on each of those if I may very briefly in terms of

layout scale and housing mix your officers consider that this provides an

appropriate movement framework.

You'll see there hopefully streets that connect

a simple hierarchy of streets,

but enabling connectivity to adjacent public open space

and beyond, which is within and then connectivity

to the existing term beyond.

For all modes of movements,

particularly pedestrian cycling.

And you'll also note that connectivity of streets

around the edge. So not an over -reliance at all on private drives here. And the

idea that with the use of perimeter blocks as you can see, so therefore

buildings, houses that front onto the street, that have private gardens to the

rear, where required some courtyard parking to the rear but limited in this

sub phase, it is a positive way to address the requirements of this

sub phase and the wider development as a whole.

So we think this is positive and certainly therefore offers

a high degree of natural surveillance onto those streets

and those streets therefore feel safer and secure.

And I think we're all familiar with those kinds of streets

in towns and places that I would hope that we value well.

So that's a simple street hierarchy is appropriate.

and from a kind of secondary street down to tertiary streets. The primitive blocks

are appropriate frontage development and the housing mix chair you often consider

is appropriate, gives a range of size and choice of homes within this sub phase

and also a range and scale of form of built form from single to three storeys

in height. The single storey buildings are essentially ancillary buildings so the

Houses are mainly two storeys in height, some two and a half,

and then some three storeys, which I'll show you shortly.

In terms of housing mix, appropriate response

to what was set out in the outline planning permission

and the housing need expressed.

31 % affordable housing in accordance

with the requirements of the outline planning permission

and which the council's housing officer agrees is positive

and in accordance with policy.

to give you and members just an idea I'm not going to show you every house type

but in those kind of negotiations and considerations with the applicant

hopefully it gives you some assurance on certainty a form of consistency of

alignment and that the buildings exhibit an appropriate vernacular flavour so it's

kind of a temporary take on what we would say is the traditional vernacular

for the cotswolds as we've done in previous sub -phases,

utilising simple and traditional forms,

roof pitches, detailing, aligned openings,

and gable end chimneys.

I've got some better images of this.

This isn't a street scene.

It's me kind of putting one image next to the other.

But these are the focal buildings

which face onto the village street

at the southern end of the parcel.

And these are the largest and tallest buildings.

The building that's shown on the left -hand side,

they're canted actually which you'll see on the plan but the building on the

left -hand side you'll see on the ground floor exhibits more of a traditional

what you might say might might be kind of shop frontage by design but that's

where the temporary community use floor space would be for community meetings or

potentially a coffee shop and that meets the requirements of the outline planning

permission albeit in a slightly different way than was thought at the

time, the community, permanent community use will of course be located within the neighbourhood

centre when that's developed in years to come. But this provides, your officers think, a

very positive response to a village space which is also going to be located just south

of this sub -phase within the adjacent sub -phase and off that village space. Above that use

in the building on the left hand side and the building on the right hand side are apartments.

So these provided some of those smaller dwellings.

And so we're not just seeing all here larger sort of housing

across the site.

And if I may just show you some typical house types again to

give some assurance about the simplicity of form and detailing

which our officers consider is appropriate and a positive in

terms of the overall development of the steadings. Again alignment

windows detailing you'll see some simple sill detailing.

you'll see the proportion of windows in the main larger to the ground floor

slightly reduced proportions to the upper floor which would be relevant to

the traditional approach and simple canopy detailing on those doorways as

well as you'll see both in terms of detached and semi -detached and terraced

properties so civilised and relevant response to the local vernacular also

So there are a range of suitable materials here, which I can show a plan, but again,

it's kind of subtle and discreet, and it's in accordance with what's set out in the site -wide

code and also in the detailed design code for certainty as the scheme continues to develop.

In terms of materiality, then yes, there's probably far too much on that plan, but what's

kind of contained on that is a revised approach to that use of essentially stone, reconstituted

stone, rough cast render, some limited brick and appropriate roof materials, two roof materials

across the sub phase as a whole. This is in accordance with the previous sub phases and

in accordance again with the site -wide code and details set out in the detailed design

code. Perhaps to give a little bit more flavour of how this starts to come

together, you'll see a range of typical street scenes there in two -dimensional

form, but hopefully again giving you some assurance to that consistency of form, of

alignment, of proportion. You'll see the gable and chimneys there as well on some

of those dwellings. So some of those kind of components and detailing that we

would expect to see that are very important to the local vernacular and

which we've seen in terms of previous sub phases and their continuation of

that approach similarly again for the parts of this it kind of gives a range

of secondary Street Tertiary Street and side Street so you know again hopefully

giving you assurance that your officers have considered how this how these

buildings start to form a clear idea in terms of composition of each of those

streets. And then the applicants very kindly spent further time and no doubt

cost but to provide some visualisation. So given us a sort of impression if you

like of a three -dimensional impression of how these buildings might start to

appear, these are those apartment buildings with the temporary community

use on the left -hand side. This is the edge of the village space I described to

the south which is in the adjacent parcel but gives you a flavour of how

this might start to look and in the middle of that is the kind of main

street of this sub phase the secondary street as I referred to it you'll also

note the potential for street trees and tree planting which also forms very much

a strategy within this sub phase if I move through quickly that is the avenue

the secondary street the building on the left -hand side faces onto an area of

additional open space within this sub phase. At one of those more minor

streets, the tertiary streets, you'll note the change in material

around a raised table. So again we're working and have worked with the

applicants to try and provide a suitable palette for not just buildings but also

surface materials as well. So we don't just rely on tarmac throughout the

scheme which we've probably learned from previous sub phases. There's probably

opportunity to do a little bit more which we're trying to do. You'll note the

use of hedging again and trees which is a helpful and useful and positive

component. And this is a sort of artistic view if you like from the northern, so

looking back into the scheme from the north from the wider strategic open

space and how those buildings, new dwellings face on from within the

subphase, face onto that public open space which surrounds this subphase and other phases

to come forward.

In terms of landscaping and BNG, then again just seeing the plan on screen, you'll note

that more strategic open space which around the northern side of this subphase, there's

a rural link to the east which again links through as an important component to the outline

approval and links all the way through to the southern open space. This sub -phase

gives a direct pedestrian access onto that rural link and to give some

assurance around people living within this sub -phase have easy walking access to a

choice of open space as well as the additional open space within the sub -phase

itself. In terms of BNG, again this sub -phase is in accordance with the

site -wide strategy which was contained in the outline approval where the

applicant is target is for a 10 percent uplift in BMG and or

offsite contributions.

Each of these sub -phases is relatively small and as you've

probably seen doesn't contain significant amounts of open

space, albeit there is an additional area in this.

So we're reliant upon the site -wide strategy as a whole to

essentially tie this together as the scheme evolves and each

sub -phase reports on that.

That strategy has been accepted and is acceptable to the scheme

as a whole. And on energy and sustainability, as you may recall,

Chair, in terms of earlier in the year when we reported on the overall strategy

here to exceed current regulations and the Council's own net zero carbon toolkit,

this sub phase does the same, exactly that. There's a variety, a kind of

response here in terms of reliance upon improved building efficiency and

insulation, reduce CO2 emissions, reducing energy demands, improve space heating and

improve water consumption. It will include the use of air source heat pumps and also

photovoltaic panels, which there's proposed condition for that, which will help of course

with that heating and hot water demand, improve thermal bridging, which improves air leakage.

So the efficiency of the dwellings and significantly

exceeds current building regulation requirements under

Part 2021 upgraded by 23 and moves really towards exceeding

future homes, which might come in towards the end of the year.

There are some suggested conditions within the report

around compliance with that strategy and of course placement

of where those and detail those photovoltaics on roofs to

come so we can manage the detailing of those components.

In terms of the consultation set out in the report,

certainly not a significant degree of concern,

if any, represented as part of this

reserve matters application.

We did receive on the original consultation,

two objections, one from colleagues

in conservation design, and that was really

around some of the detailed components.

I think I've described the way the discussions went in terms of refinements

and improvements to the scheme. And also from the Designing Out Crime Officer

which was essentially a kind of standard response really in terms of some of

their concerns about parking, about connectivity, about potential for future

crime. We've had a subsequent meeting with a Designing Out Crime Officer and I

think it's fair to say they don't object in principle to this scheme. They're kind

raising issues, which I think they've raised on previous subphases, and they're sort of

making that point, really, that we need to keep an eye on this.

But when we run through the refinements and the revisions to the scheme, I think they're

very much satisfied.

What we've also agreed, Chair, is that we'll actually include them a little bit more in

terms of the pre -application process, so it gives them greater assurance that any concerns

they might have about this part of the siren system becoming a hotbed of crime, which I

out very much will give them greater assurance. So your office is a and also

you'll see that objections raised by conservation design have now been

largely resolved and there's no objection outstanding. Any concerns

raised by the County Council highways officer have also been resolved and

the Sarrant -Hastit -Hairn Council essentially referred to comments made by those

others which I've just described so there's nothing really outstanding there.

Chair and therefore if I move to a recommendation which your officers feel

the proposals are an appropriate response to requirements of the outline

planning permission, the site by design code, the detailed design code entirely

consistent with the outline consent to the outline planning framework and the

priorities set out therein and the recommendation for this reserve matters

application is to grant permission.

Subject, though, to the proposed conditions as revised

by the information contained

in the additional pages set out before you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Julian.

I'm coming now to the speakers.

I've got Mr. Greg Evans for the applicant.

The only speaker today.

Again, you've got a good three minutes.

Whenever you're ready, we'll start the timer.

Go ahead when you're ready.

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:46:26

Good afternoon. I'm Gregory Evans from Harper Crew, speaking in support of this application.

Applicant/Agent - 2:46:28

Thank you members for the opportunity to speak, and I also thank your officers for working with us positively and collaboratively, and for preparing a robust committee report.

We at Harper Crew are very familiar with Sire and Cestor and delivering new homes at the

town.

Working with the Bathurst Estate, we have delivered the first phase of new homes at

the Steddings, which has been completed and we are excited at the prospect of delivering

further new homes at this sustainably located site.

This application has been developed building on our experience on our first phase and utilising

the framework provided by the outline planning permission. The proposals will contribute

to housing delivery for the district, including providing 40 new affordable homes. The site -wide

design code and detailed design code have positively influenced the layout and design

of this phase. The scheme responds to the character of the area and integrates with

the adjacent plots and the permitted road and landscaping surrounding the site. A series

secondary and tertiary streets have been designed with prominent buildings located at key locations.

This phase includes new landmark buildings which front onto the location of the village square,

creating a defined new space and supporting the master plan vision of a focal neighbourhood area

for the Stethings community. These architecturally designed buildings will also provide a gateway

into the scheme leading onto the central avenue.

The northern edge green, a secondary green space, is a welcome addition and will complement

the adjacent to quit play area which will come forward through the wider landscaping

proposals.

The high quality design responds to the standards set out by the wider design codes.

A welcoming mix of materials including stone reflect the local vernacular and provide a

variety within the development.

Solar panels and air source heat pumps are included. Electrical vehicle charges will be provided for every home.

This application also includes the temporary space for community uses within the buildings located along the Spine Road, fronting onto the village square.

This fulfils the Section 106 requirement and will be utilised until permanent spaces are brought forward.

We are proud of this proposal which has been refined and influenced by working constructively with your officers and through regular design meetings and also following engagement with the local community.

It will deliver 129 high quality and sustainable homes of which 40 will be affordable along with new green areas and with comprehensive soft landscaping.

So thank you once again and we respectfully request that members approve this application.

Thank you.

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:49:26

Thank you Mr Evans.

If you would like to go back to your seat.

I am going to go now back to the committee to see if there are any questions for the

officer.

I have got Patrick and then I have got Paul.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:49:45

Chair, do we have a housing officer with us? Do we have a housing officer with us today?

Specifically, but we may be out of session for questions.

Well, I know it's questions, but my question might be to colleagues. No, I won't put it

think that 2 .3 % social rented would be adequate. Given the difficulty we have got in falling

school numbers, the difficulty we have got with the cost of living, you look at the table

on page 128, it tells you that affordable rent, which means unaffordable, will be 22,

There will be three social rent and 15 shared ownership and 89 market.

Three actually affordable properties, possibly I think for one.

In fact, three four bed dwellings.

No apartments, none of those flats we just saw.

Why on earth can't we have some affordable social housing ideally in apartments near a centre?

How on earth were we persuaded?

How did we, given I know our housing officers are very professional,

but the Steddings application got through with a subnormal number, percentage of social housing.

Nowadays we go for 40%.

This is, we know, we've agreed well under 40 % for the Steddings.

It was a long time ago and there were good reasons.

I mean this is just so disappointing. I just hoping that there would be a

professional person here to say, yeah nobody's having babies, everybody's

got to go to Dosh, people can afford to buy 500 ,000 pound houses, reduced to 400 ,000

because they're affordable. It just was weird. There's nobody to answer any of that.

I'll move on. Yeah, I'm looking for questions. Well that was my question. Is

there a housing officer anybody can answer how we came down from, I know we

didn't get 40 % on the application, but to think that 100 and something properties and

we have got three social rented, it is just as well our former leader is no longer on

this council. He would have exploded, Jo -Aris. He really would. I am nearly exploding.

Officer - 2:52:12

Chair, I can provide some response. Thank you to the Councillor for the question. I

I think firstly, back to the, you're right,

there is an overall strategy that was set out

in the Outline Planning Permission

and the Outline Planning Framework.

And that does also allow some variation

to the mix within each sub phase.

So whatever's before you now,

and the housing officer has considered it in detail,

is in accordance with what was set out

in the Outline Planning Permission,

the Outline Planning Framework.

So there is some variation.

You'll note that in terms of the,

how affordable housing might be described in planning policy

does allow for that mix.

I mean, whether you think that's the right thing or not,

there is a variation on what an affordable unit might be.

And that then goes back to that site -wide strategy

that allows some variance with each sub -phase coming forward.

So the question to the housing strategy officer

or the housing officer was, is the slight variation here,

both in terms of mix and proportion in context and allowable as part of the overall, the

answer was yes, albeit noting, Councillor, that there is some variation to it. And all

I would say was that he's just one subphase, 129 homes of the wider 2 ,350. So you may see

yet further variation and differences as other subphases come forward. And I think it's an

important part of the overall decision -making to take into account. But

in terms of whether you think the proposals before you are contrary to

what was set out in the outlying plan commission and I would say they're not.

They are in accordance with that and the potential for the council to make

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:54:03

decisions on such variation. Thank you very much. Can I ask some non -housing

questions? Two quick ones, Chief. So I'm looking at a nice pretty

diamond picture, page 155, and quite like the avenue of trees just above the

avenue, the spinal street I'll call it, is there any reason why the trees are

offset from the line of the street and does the pathway or trackway or

cycleway between what appear to be trees but slightly offset from the line

of the street, is that going to be fully connected into existing

properties. It appears to be heading towards them at the top of the page. You

know the answer to that. That lovely picture. It's pretty not the right scale is it to

have this. I didn't really note the trees were particularly offset. I think the

avenue as I showed it on screen before offers a consistent alignment.

I thought it was a relatively straight road with a relatively consistent verge within

which street trees could be planted.

Properties clearly will provide direct access onto that street, on both sides of the street.

Importantly also, that footpath that runs from the village space to the south to the

north, you'll see aligns directly with then the footpath within the strategic open space,

which then moves kind of forward and connects with public rights away beyond the site.

So I think in terms of general alignment and connectivity, it's positive and it's good.

I was just thinking of Vista.

Yeah. In some ways, if there was a deflection on the street, I don't think that would detract,

but I think it's a relatively sort of straight street anyway in terms of that line

of sight all the way through to the public open space.

Thank you.

Officer - 2:56:09

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:56:11

Patrick, if you can switch your lights off.

I have got Councillor Evans and then Councillor Blas

Councillor Paul Evans - 2:56:22

social rent. They are disappointingly low though for me. My question is around

battery storage. I'm pleased to see that there are solar panels and

heat pumps. Have we put any requirement in for battery storage along

with properties to make the most of those facilities particularly the

Officer - 2:57:01

solar panels? There's no proposals for battery storage for the sub phase as a

whole, no. It's, you know, in terms of the technologies you'll probably know

counsellor, those photovoltaic panels can then contribute in combination with

air source heat pump improved insulation. So each dwelling will be dealt with in

that way which, you know, in terms of this sub phase is the proposal before us.

the collective sort of value of that will still by far exceed what's currently required in building regulations

And that's what your officers have been sort of striving to achieve

Councillor Paul Evans - 2:57:40

The reason for my question was I think I read siren sester town council's comment that

Purchasers are offered the option of battery storage when purchasing is that?

there when you when you say that ctc's

Officer - 2:57:56

Comments are addressed. Does that include that?

provision? No, these proposals don't include battery storage. What I would say as, you know, in terms of

scale of development and opportunity, those opportunities for sort of broader

and wider infrastructure become more evident with kind of largest, perhaps

with larger sub -phase. On this number of homes there's no real requirement for a

central battery storage facility which would be quite challenging in itself. I

I note the point made by the town council,

but to achieve those improved standards of efficiency,

Councillor Paul Evans - 2:58:33

there's no requirement for central battery storage

within this sub -phase.

That's fine.

It's just I noted that you put on your slide that CTC's

comments had all been addressed or worked through,

but that one hasn't.

That was my only point.

Officer - 2:58:48

Well, it's probably been addressed,

but it's probably, you know, there's no requirement for it.

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:58:54

Councillor Blattington. Thank you chair. You mentioned about designing out crime

and Gloucester Constabulary Commons. I think you said they've all been resolved now?

Is that right? I think what I said was we officers had a meeting with the Designing

Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:59:15

Out Crime officer, officers actually there's two of them, and we run through all of

their points in terms of the specific design proposals put forward and what

I'm reporting to you is that they have no objection in

principle to this scheme.

The comments they make are general points around they

prefer, perhaps through experience, not to have certain

components within developments in case problems arise, but we

address each of those in detail in terms of this scheme in

particular, and I would suggest there's certainly no reason why

Officer - 2:59:52

your officers would recommend anything other than approval of

scheme from a wider planning and design point of view.

So there's always a balance on these things.

And I would also suggest to you that sometimes, in my experience over many years, the Designing

Out Crime Office's objectives are not quite the same thing as the Planning Authority's

objectives in terms of achieving high quality design, hypermobility, excellent connectivity,

and excellent quality of place.

You could go to the other extreme and say the best kind of design for that might be

a form of development which doesn't achieve any of those things.

I don't think your officers would be supporting it and it wouldn't be in accordance with the outline planning permission, the outline planning framework and

the site -wide design code. So I think in terms of this sub phase and previous sub phases because they said exactly the same thing,

having met them, given them some confidence and assurance that we're listening and also that we can include them in future pre -application

discussion so that they don't just provide a standard letter essentially which says the

same thing. But on that basis I would recommend that we have resolved those concerns, certainly

from a planning point of view to a degree that we would recommend approval of this reserve

matters application.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 3:01:07

The next point, you mentioned about solar panels and it be a condition. Is that relating

to condition number nine on page 147. It doesn't actually mention solar panels, it mentions

Officer - 3:01:24

a scheme. I was wondering if that was the one you were referring to.

I think that condition 9 is in terms of all measures and systems for the energy performance

and efficiency of dwellings.

So that's kind of part of the discussion.

I think my thinking was more so in terms of the components set out under condition 7,

which actually refers to roof panels, roof lights and other external features.

If you wanted that to be more explicit, then I think it's the roof panel point, really.

So we would see the detail and also condition relating to the placement of where those solar

panels will actually be to make sure that's contained within the conditions.

My last point is still on condition number seven we mentioned about rainwater

goods do we need to be more explicit about that and saying storage of

Officer - 3:02:36

rainwater? I think the condition was more relation to quality of external features

Councillor Ray Brassington - 3:02:45

more than storage. Have you got anything in mind, Councillor? Yeah, I mean

considering we're in a drought at the moment, I think, you know, we should be

encouraging new houses to be built with rainwater storage for everyone. We can

Officer - 3:03:00

certainly include within that condition those words storage of rainwater. I mean

more than likely on this scheme that would probably be a water book to the

rear of properties where and that's probably going to be could be included

anyway so we can include that.

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:03:14

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 3:03:21

Councillor Colman. Thank you, just a quick one. Can you assure us that we're

continuing to be tenure blind on things like front doors and porches? It's

disappointing. It's always been disappointing with older developments all

over the cotswolds underneath the country, you can always tell most of these places,

oh, this is a social rented area or this is an affordable housing area.

And not far from this development, and I think possibly with the first phase of Steddings

but also Orchard Field, which is a neighbouring development,

as I understand it tenure blind was achieved.

Is it mentioned in here somewhere?

Thank you so much.

Councillor, and I can certainly assure you,

I'd recommend you go and have a look at subphase 1A

because I don't think.

No, I think you might be right.

I don't think that's the case.

And you've heard that.

Was it not tenure -blind?

I don't think that's the case on 1A

that you would spot the difference.

Yeah, no, it is tenure -blind.

That's what I mean, sorry. It is tenure -blind.

Indeed, that you'd spot the difference.

Officer - 3:04:25

And certainly on this subphase,

it will be exactly the same.

Entirely, entirely tenure -blind.

And for the reason we've already said

about those conditions of making sure

that we've got further management and control on all of those external features, those important

design components, enclosure, rainwater goods, windows, all of the things that we continue

to think are very important on this scheme. We'd agree entirely with that.

Councillor Paul Evans - 3:04:54

Councillor Evans.

Sorry, thank you. Another one on solar panels, which I neglected to ask last time out. Can

Can you confirm that all dwellings will have access to a heat pump and service of a solar

panel?

I know they won't be on some buildings but not on others.

Officer - 3:05:18

In terms of the former, yes.

I mean, you'll note there's a range of kind of buildings here.

I note the apartment buildings, for example, where that really wouldn't apply.

So it's certainly electric future.

air source heat pumps here are going to be used extensively throughout the sub phase.

The reason for the condition on photovoltaic panels is exactly for that reason, that they

might not be suitable for every dwelling, depending on orientation, and also they're

probably not going to be suitable for every dwelling that's contained within, for example,

the apartment buildings.

Councillor Paul Evans - 3:05:54

So not necessarily required, but we will look at that and we'll condition it accordingly.

Okay, thank you.

I just got one other one as well.

I noticed that Siddington Parish Council have asked

for an appropriate construction management plan to be provided

so that construction traffic doesn't go

through Siddington Village.

It's on page 121.

Is that in the conditions, or would it

Officer - 3:06:16

be reasonable to include them?

Certainly reasonable, and it's covered already.

There's a condition in the outline planning application

which requires one of those for each subphase or phase

of development.

Councillor Paul Evans - 3:06:29

So we don't need to repeat it in terms of reserve matters application.

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:06:34

Thank you. As long as that is there, that's good. Thanks.

Thank you very much.

If there are no more questions before we go on to the vote,

would you like to summarise your comments?

Councillor Fowls?

Councillor David Fowles - 3:06:49

I just want to say two things actually.

I want to congratulate the case officer.

He didn't draw a breath during his presentation.

It was the most comprehensive presentation

I recall receiving, but then I remember him

being the last person who did this.

That was also equally comprehensive.

As I understand it, we're just here

to approve the reserve matters, yeah?

And as someone who was probably any ...

Well, I think Councillor Coleman was here,

and I think Councillor Brattington,

when the Steddings was originally received its outline planning consent

back in 2019 and so far we've had under a hundred houses built the sooner we get

into the next phase from my point of view the better I know it's contributing

largely now because of the delay to the new local plan but I for one would like

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:07:49

to propose the officers recommendation seven years on from the outline planning

Councillor Ray Brassington - 3:07:56

application. Thank you. Before I ask for a second, are there any more comments?

Councillor Brathenton? Yeah, I mean if we were proposing an acceptance I would like

to say that we should add that condition 7 we should be clarifying that roof

panels include solar and rainwater goods include storage.

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:08:15

Councillor Paul Evans - 3:08:21

I'm Councillor Evans. Are you proposing a specific amendment to include those terms

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:08:36

in that condition? I'll second Ray's amendment and the proposal if that's the case. Are you

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 3:08:47

I was about to say, I think, does Councillor Power accept the amendment?

Would you like to make that amendment as part of your proposal?

It's a bit cleaner.

Yeah, sorry.

I think we should follow up.

I forgot.

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:09:01

Then could I have a seconder please for that?

That's seconded by Councillor Paul Evans with the amendment on condition 7.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 3:09:21

or does already actually include location for both TV panels including individual dwellings, but just for

concise, well for roof panels we can just rope through panels including solar volteics and for

rainwater because we can put including rainwater storage and harvesting so we can just yeah update

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:09:38

those two bullet points.

Okay, I think I'm quite happy with that and I would propose we go to the vote.

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:10:04

I will for Tyler's sake, the approval of reserve matters on 26 .1237.

The committee approved the recommendation which is the approval of reserve matters subject to conditions.

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:10:29

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:10:32

Thank you very much.

Councillor David Fowles - 3:10:38

I am mindful if I could just make the comment that we have got some members of the public

11 26/01237/REM - Land South West of Alexander Drive and East of the Maples, Cirencester

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:10:46

who have been here for three and a half years.

12 26/00905/FUL - Land South of Longfurlong Lane, Tetbury

I think we are ready to pick up on our next case and this is, excuse me a moment,

this is a full application 26 stroke 00 905 full. The applicant is Long Furlong

Greenfields Association and I would before we go to the speakers start off

Officer - 3:11:30

with the officers report. Thank you chair and yes this application relates to a

parcel of land south of Long Furlong Lane in Tethbury and it's change of use

of land to class F2C, which is an area or place for outdoor sport or recreation. And

the intended use is as a community nature area. So this is the application site in red

here. And it, like I said, it's approximately 9 .62 hectares, so it's quite a large parcel

of land. It's currently agricultural land, and it's located within the open countryside,

and it's outside of Tepary's development boundary. So it lies within the Cotswold National

landscape which you can see is the dark green on the plan there. And then you've also got

Tepary Conservation Area to the north and Dorton Highgrove Conservation Area to the south of the

site. Part of the site also lies within flood zone two and three which is shown on this

on this plan here. So just kind of the lower the lower field. So the application has been

brought before committee is the site area exceeds one hectare. So in principle

the proposed community nature area could provide public benefits for instance

through recreation health and well -being however the application

applications not demonstrated compliance with policy INF 2 of the local plan and

that policy relates to social and community infrastructure and proposals

for community uses including open spaces and they need to kind of the applications

need to demonstrate compliance with a number of criteria listed by policy INF

to. It's considered in this instance that insufficient information has been

submitted with regards to the layout, access, management, maintenance, funding

and local need. In addition, because it's kind of quite a large parcel of

agricultural land, also kind of concerned that we haven't received an

agricultural land classification survey, so we can't determine whether it's best

and most versatile agricultural land and whether if that would be lost we need to

determine the weight that should be given to that potential harm. In landscape terms, it's kind of

been presented as a low -key use and there's no buildings, lightings or hard standing pathways,

like formal paths or sports infrastructure proposed on the site. So on that basis, the

landscape reason for refusal is not considered to be justified, so that it's not recommended for

refusal on those grounds. And planning conditions could potentially restrict operational development

at the site. In addition, in terms of heritage, the absence of any operational

development means of proposal would not be likely to harm the significance or

setting of nearby designated or non -designated heritage assets. We don't

have any objections from the highway authority either, due to the low

intensity nature of the use that they kind of basically don't consider that

there would be an impact upon highway safety. So there are outstanding

biodiversity issues with the application and the council's biodiversity officers

advised that an ecological impact assessment is required due to the

presence of suitable habitats and protected or notable species which have

been recorded nearby to the site. However we haven't received an assessment so it

is recommended for refusal on those grounds as well and the applicant has

also sought to rely on the de minimis exemption for mandatory biodiversity net

gain. However it is considered an instance that BNG is required for the

change of use of the land. So we haven't received that information so again we

are recommending refusal on those basis on that basis. Again we haven't received

any flood risk information and policy N14 does require a flood risk

assessment so we've only got kind of a sheet kind of showing basically the

flood area on this screen here and it's kind of considered to be insufficient

information. We've received approximately 79 representations on the

case, it's generated quite a lot of public interest. 71 of those are logged in

support of the application and we have eight objections. So the support comments

mainly relate to community benefits, access to nature, landscape protection

and biodiversity aspirations. Whereas we do have the objections, they raise

concerns around the use class and the lack of detail, land ownership and if

it's deliverable and highways ecological concerns. So overall it's been

recommended that planning commissioners refused for four reasons, kind of at the

back of the report and these relate to failure to demonstrate deliverable and

appropriately managed community facility, insufficient information regarding

agricultural land quality, a failure to demonstrate compliance with the

mandatory biodiversity net gain and then insufficient ecological information and

insufficient flood risk and drainage information. So hopefully that gives you

an overview of the proposal. Just some photographs here to show you the

landscapes. You can see it's fields and this is a public right -of -way access

into the site which would be used by members of the public. They're not

proposing any additional accesses so it would only be accessed through the

rights of way. There are kind of woodland bouts inside this is what the picture

here of one of the woodland bouts within the site but quite a lot of it is kind

of as you can see the pastoral agricultural use at the moment. Okay so

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:17:08

that concludes the presentation thank you chair. Thank you very much indeed. I

I do have speakers on this application.

I have a support for Mr. Steven Kightly and the applicant,

Mr. Peter Martin.

If you'd like to come forward and take a seat,

you'll have three minutes to make your presentations.

It's your crib sheet.

You're absolutely allowed.

Yeah. And I think on my list at least, it's Mr. Kightley to go first.

Mr. Kightley, if you can press the button on the microphone, and then whenever you're ready,

Supporter - 3:18:17

if you start, we'll be timing three minutes, I'll let you know, ten seconds before your

time is up, but if you could wind up at that point.

I am representing the views of over 150 residents who are in support of this application. The

reason we are in support is to protect and preserve an area of land that is not just

part of the sensitive Cotswold National Landscape, but which also provides a beautiful outlook

and views for the many persons who may drive, walk, run or cycle along both Longfellow Long

Lane and the Bath Road, and also along the public footpaths which includes the Monarch's

Way, whether for personal betterment, for work or just for pleasure.

We are also in agreement with the application to protect a beautiful piece of landscape

for the benefit of all persons who want to continue to enjoy a piece of the Cotswold

that has been undisturbed for many, many decades and probably centuries.

The application has made it clear with intentions not to develop it, but I hope to see the landing

question be protected, retained and maintained and to make sure there are conditions to prevent

any form of development being allowed to spoil this.

We also wish to prevent any form of destruction of what has always been a village -like environment.

The application we are supporting reflects most of the planning policies regarding the

preservation of nature and the countryside and wildlife.

In fact, we are astonished at the officer's recommendation to refuse when it is clear

of the application's intent.

There is no harm in this proposal.

Granting consent would be a zero risk either to the Council or the landscape or, indeed,

nature itself.

The officer's report has vastly over -complicated what seems to be a very easy and simple decision

to make.

A failure to approve the scheme would not just be a loss of amenity and a loss of tranquilly,

would have failed to protect a piece of the Cotswold landscape.

We imagine there are very few applications where you are being asked to maintain a piece

of landscape which isn't being developed, isn't being changed, in fact isn't having

anything done to it.

For once you are being asked to vote for protecting the Cotswold landscape.

You may ask why.

Well, that is easy.

We are also aware that the CDC planning department has been in discussion with Miller Homes on

this part of land who wished to develop this land.

A vote to approve would help to reinforce why no speculative development should be allowed

and why local plans are produced in the first instance to clearly indicate where land can

be developed.

This piece of land is not one of them.

The draught Regulation 19 Local Plan, which has been published, makes it very clear that

there is no proposed development for this location or in fact to any part of the southern

end of Tepary and the new policy is clear where any form of development of Tepary is

to be.

In fact, the Council believes that housing requirements for the whole county can be met

without the need to allocate additional sites and sensitive parts of the Cotswold National

Landscape.

Refusing consent to save a piece of this national landscape would send a damaging message to

the wider public.

Many of us have enjoyed this landscape for decades, if not our whole lives.

We want to be able to pass on to future generations in the same condition we have been fortunate

to enjoy.

There is no harm to anyone in allowing this application to be accepted.

Preserve and protect the site as is.

Thank you, Mr. Kightly.

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:21:36

Ward Member - 3:21:38

Mr. Martin, whenever you're ready, if you press your button on the microphone,

and whenever you're ready, please start.

Okay.

Good evening.

Applicant/Agent - 3:21:46

Having received information from our ward councillor in just the last few hours,

I can now see why officers are thrown such a ridiculously high burden of detail demanded

of us in defence of their recommendation to refuse this application.

It seems the intention behind their stance is that they don't want to create a precedent

by granting any kind of consent on this site other than what is now because they will be

theoretically cracking open the door to other changes of use, specifically the Miller Homes

application for housing. Whilst that is welcome news to us, we are nevertheless back inside

the age -old debate of whether precedent or versus every application is judged on its

own merits. Having spent eight years of my life sitting in here voting on planning applications,

I'm of the same opinion now as I was back then. That is that it both apply at the same

time. On its face this application is clearly designed to protect and preserve

this precious site in its current form for the enjoyment of current and future

generations. There clearly will be no increase in water drainage or flooding

and the flood risk map just shown is massively exaggerated and not at all

what is on the public file that needs to be resolved. There will be no increase in

parking, no increase in traffic, no increase in visitors because the site

will continue to be used as it is now and always has been. There will be no

changes in boundaries or boundary treatment, no new access points, no

building or impermeable surfaces and the biodiversity will clearly not be

impacted. There cannot be a loss of agricultural land because it can revert

back at any time. The land has not actually been farmed for the last six

plus years other than to cut hay which is exactly what we're planning to do. The

highlights all of this. The application is frankly an obvious candidate for

approval. However they seem to be making a planning mountain out of a planning

molehill. The level of detail being demanded of us is simply a distraction

because it wouldn't contribute meaningfully to the decision that needs

to be made. We cannot provide information on future hypotheticals or details of

anything we are not planning to do. The BNG de minimis exemption clearly applies

according to the letter of the law, and we are prepared to back that up at appeal.

The officers are falsely assuming that any change of use will, in and of itself, harm

the site, which is clearly not true.

All applications are decided on their own merits.

What they are worried about is creating a precedent, and we don't think that matters

for the following reasons.

Any other hypothetical recreational uses contained in F2C would, in any case, necessitate a new

a new planning application. So what we're asking you to do is to approve this application

using the common sense that our members are renowned for. Thank you.

Thank you very much. If you would like to return to your seats now.

Thanks a lot.

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:25:04

The ward member is Laura Hall -Wilson who isn't here today. In fact, I believe she is on holiday.

But she has sent a statement to read out.

Julia Gibson, Officer - 3:25:23

I'm going to ask Democratic Services to read

out that statement.

Thank you.

So, Councillor Laura Hall -Wilson has stated,

I'm supportive of the underlying intention

of this application, which is to safeguard this special

and trash piece of land from residential development.

The proposal would, in effect,

maintain the existing position and prevent the land

from being brought forward for residential purposes.

However, I do have concerns about the principle

of an application being made for planning commission

on land which is not owned by the applicant.

I recognise that this is a matter for the committee

to determine on the planning merits of the application,

but I think it is worth being mindful

of the wide implications of the decision.

I note the comments of Tethbury Upton Parish Council,

which has stated that it wishes to see

the land remain as agricultural land, I understand that this is the general

intention of the applicant and that the application has been made under the

closest possible category to reflect that intention. In the same vein, some of

the officer's comments on the request to the applicant have been made while

following the planning framework to the letter, despite the fact that this

application does not fit exactly within the relevant criteria. There is very

strong local opposition to residential development of this site. Both the Parish Council and

Town Council, alongside an overwhelming majority of local residents, have made their positions

clear through their attendance at public meetings and their support of the Longfurl and Greenfields

Association, the applicant. The protection of this land from residential development

is therefore an important local concern.

If members accept the recommendation

that this application be refused,

I would hope that this would be an acknowledgement

that any change of use of the land

would have a negative effect

on the Cotswold National Landscape

that would outweigh the benefits.

If even this relatively sensitive change of use

is considered too harmful to approve,

a far more intrusive, large -scale,

residential development would have a significant greater

negative effect.

I would urge committee members to look into the detail

of this application and engage with the applicant

and to understand their intentions beyond the specific

criteria set out in the application.

I would also urge members not to refuse the application solely

on the grounds that some

of the requested reports have not been forthcoming,

particularly where those reports are not relevant

of the underlying intention of this application.

My position is that I wholeheartedly support the intention

to safeguard this land from residential development

on this application, should it be approved,

would achieve that.

This is not a site identified for development

in the current local plan for the Cotswolds,

nor has it been identified in the emerging local plan.

It is right that it remains a place of open countryside,

agriculture and light recreation.

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:28:38

Thank you very much Julia.

I'd like to go on now to questions for the Officer.

I think David had his hand up first.

Councillor David Fowles - 3:28:55

The question that's been raised by the ward member directed at Mari, my understanding

is that people can put in planning applications on land that they don't own, but that's question

number one.

Shall I then come on to the other questions after I get an answer to that?

Legal Services - 3:29:23

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, you're quite correct. Any person can put in an application on any piece of land.

They just need to serve the requisite notices as required.

Councillor David Fowles - 3:29:38

The second question is 8 .5 on page 166. An objection has been received by

AJW on behalf of the landowner saying the site is being promoted for residential development

and is not available for the proposed use. I take it that's not correct. If the first

point you've made applies then technically 85 is incorrect, is that right? It's a legitimate

application.

Officer - 3:30:14

Shall I answer that as case officer? Yes, so they have served

notice on the owners of the land, they've signed certificate B and they've served

notice on the land but it's kind of a separate matter, it isn't

different, it's up to the owners really. I think I've addressed it in the officer

report. I've written a paragraph on it so just trying to find the relevant

paragraph to refer you to. But it's kind of been that they have served notice on the on the

owners of the land but the owners have effectively in the kind of comments of

objection we have been told that it's not available by the land agent as such

but it doesn't make it is a valid application because they have served the

it is valid. It's a valid application irrespective of the ownership, irrespective of the intentions

of Miller Homes. Yes. And I think we all know what the intention is behind the application.

Councillor Daryl Corps - 3:31:17

So okay, thank you for that. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you, Chair. So if we grant permission

tonight and the applicant has no legal ability to implement it. Are we

effectively granting like theoretical permission and rather than delivering a

Officer - 3:31:46

community asset to the area? If you do grant permission it would benefit

from planning permission they would legally be able to turn it into a

community area. So it would have the planning permission in place. In terms of

implementation if they're not proposing to you know actually put anything on the

site in terms of if it were implemented I guess that would that's kind of an

interesting point really because they've got like a three -year time limit in

which to implement it but if no changes are physically proposed when does the

Councillor Daryl Corps - 3:32:21

change of use kind of occur. Would any conditions that we could impose on this negate any of your concerns?

Officer - 3:32:32

I think in terms of conditions, you could look to apply conditions, but I think

fundamentally in terms of the way that we assess applications we have to look

at the policies in the local plan. So, and it's considered that the level of

information submitted doesn't satisfy the key policies that we're looking at in

this instance such as INF2 and then you know you've got the ecological concerns

as well so we are kind of lacking information really it's kind of got

insufficient information to be able to support it against the local plan

Councillor Daryl Corps - 3:33:02

policies at the moment. There's nothing we can do in this meeting to assist the

Officer - 3:33:09

applicants in that process here today. Because we don't have the information I

They need to carry out the survey work in order for us to then make a review that and

get specialist opinion of officers.

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:33:22

Councillor Paul Evans - 3:33:25

Councillor Evans.

Thank you for the information.

Mine is a technical question.

really. So this is to change use from agricultural to F whatever it is F2 for

recreational use and planning permission would then need to be if it were great

if we were to allow it there would need to be something within three years to

effectively make that. In the interim what would stop the landowner coming

forward and saying haha well now what I want to do is I'm going to bring a

proposal forward to build houses on this and the first part of that is to change use back.

Officer - 3:34:10

Is there anything to stop the landowner doing that?

So the landowner, he can apply for planning permission for housing for residential development

and that would be assessed on its own merits

Councillor Paul Evans - 3:34:24

as well if that helps.

So just so in and of itself the granting of this

application of change of use would not preclude Miller Homes or anybody else

doing a speculative development on this piece of land. That's correct. If it were

granted an application for residential development could still come forward and

that too would have to be assessed on its own merits. And the landowner would

probably say that this had not been implemented at the site. But the fact

that the change of use had been made to recreational wouldn't have material

Officer - 3:35:00

bearing on that application consideration would it would it make it

harder to get that application through I don't I don't believe it would have a

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 3:35:06

bearing on the I think we're probably veering into hypotheticals and future

applications are no I understand but I fully understand the intent of this

Councillor Paul Evans - 3:35:18

proposal and I I know this isn't a question and I broadly support it it's

aims like I can see why you would want to keep a piece of much loved and

cherished recreational land or agricultural land that's used for all kinds of stuff in

the same way it is. We have them in my ward. We have them in where I live. So I do support

it and I think it's important that certainly we understand the basis and what the consequences

of any decision that we make here might be.

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:35:48

It is my turn now.

And then there is more to come.

I understand that this is the first time I have had this kind of case, so it is a bit

of a mind blower.

I understand the principle that a third party can apply to change a change of views on somebody

else's land, the farmer's land.

In this case, a residence association is applied to change the use.

What if I came next week with an application to change it to a football pitch?

Could I do that?

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 3:36:33

Yeah, I think it comes back to that sort of classic planning thing where you don't need

to own the land to be able to apply for planning permission if you can serve the correct certificate.

I can apply to build a shed in my neighbour's garden.

It doesn't give me the legal right to hop the fence and build the shed.

it's I think it's the same principle here you don't need to own the land to

submit an application you just need to serve notice on the landowner so it's

the same principle here yes it is in theory there's nothing stopping someone

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:36:57

submitting any nature of application on land as long as they serve the correct

notices. Thanks Harry. My second question is Helen could you remind me what the

land owners point of view on this is?

Officer - 3:37:17

So if I can refer you to paragraph 8 .4 and 8 .5 on page 166 of the committee report. Basically

they've raised tearly planning consultants on behalf of Miller Homes have raised an objection.

and then there's also an objection that's been received at 8 .5 from AJW

Land and Development which is like an agency and they've said they've

commented on behalf of the landowners and the comments state that land has

been promoted for residential development by Miller Homes and is not

available for the proposed use concerns are raised that the application

description is unclear the submitted details are insufficient no wider public

access rights would be created the proposal be undeliverable without

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:38:09

land owners agreement and the proposal would conflict with policy INF2. So they have raised

an objection to it.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 3:38:14

Thank you. Thank you very much. The next on my list is Patrick.

Thank you, Chair. If we are to believe the speakers and have no reason not to, they have

a strategy which is to maintain almost exactly as now the way the land is managed, mowed

once or maybe twice a year and otherwise available to for public access. In order

to achieve that somehow they've got to show biodiversity. That to me is a

logical gain. In other words if we want to maintain a field or fields as they

are now available they apparently are for informal recreation with a bit of

I suppose you might know a slightly lower level of grass to indicate a favoured walk.

In order to get permission they have to show somehow a biodiversity net gain.

But how can you have a net gain by saying we're going to keep things as they are?

Oh, you've got to go and buy off -site have you?

Is that my question?

Does that mean they've got to go and buy some off -site biodiversity net gain in order to

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 3:39:29

preserve the current quite diverse, not that diverse I suppose, quite biodiverse status.

This is, we're getting into Alice in Wonderland aren't we?

I think to put it simply, biodiversity net gain applies to any development.

The change of use of land is in itself, according to Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning

Act, it is development.

So the proposal put before us is the change of use from agricultural land to class F2,

F3, whatever it might be.

But that use class, so that is a material change of use that is development.

We therefore have to look at it in the context of biodiversity net gain.

Officer - 3:39:59

So, yes, it triggers biodiversity net gain by virtual being developed.

And I don't know if, Danny, you've been informed because you want to try to identify.

Yeah, that's okay.

Hello.

So, BNG is a legislative requirement and not a policy requirement.

So, by law, we have to do it.

So, if an application is subject to BNG, is subject to BNG, and the applicant has no choice but to deliver,

at least a 10 percent net gain.

So, the applicant has claims that the application benefits from the de minimis exemption.

So what we need as local authority offices is to be able to assess whether that's true.

Now, the information they've provided suggests that they may have priority habitats on site.

Now, a de minimis exemption no longer applies if priority habitats are on site and there will be impacts to that priority habitat.

They're proposing potentially to mow pathways and other things as such, and therefore there would be an impact, and therefore the de minimis exemption does not apply.

But that's why we've requested additional information at this stage

Because we need to be able to undertake an assessment to determine if it is or is not

Applicable, so that's what we're at and that's why we required that we requested that information

It's not because we're against the proposal is because it's a legible a separate requirement

so we have to be certain on whether it can be delivered or not and

With regards to whether it's off -site they can do it on -site off -site or purchasing units from an off -site provider. It's their choice

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 3:41:12

That's really helpful just to help us since we've got another big meeting tomorrow to do with the local plan.

I don't recall but perhaps you can confirm is there any proposals in the local plan we're trying to agree for Reg 19 tomorrow I think is it?

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:41:32

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 3:41:34

Yeah. Are there any proposals for a change of use for this site?

Not as far as I'm aware.

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:41:40

Councillor Nikki Ind - 3:41:46

there. Thank you very much Patrick. I've got Nicky and then David. Thank you chair.

I can probably add something to Councillor Coleman there. So in the

emerging local plan it refers to protecting and enhancing the Cotswold

District's landscape including the area designated as part of the Cotswold

landscape, alongside its historic settlements and wider natural and built

environment and also to remain a core priority of the local plan. This site has

not been identified as a suitable site and was discounted at stage one. So I've

checked that. So I'll get on to my questions. So in paragraph 190 of the

MPPF says that it states that major development in,

and it's not, this obviously isn't a major development,

but things should be refused, and major development

should be refused except in exceptional circumstances,

and there's a proven public interest.

So I suppose in TEPCO you'd argue that the development

where the GP surgery site was, that was an exceptional site.

So my question is, well, I've got a number of questions.

One, is this area, it is very confusing because the Residence Association don't

own the land. So saying that they can apply for application to on somebody

else's land, can this piece of land be protected under DS4 because we know our

local plans out of date, we know the emerging local plans on its way, is there

a way it's within the national landscape for it to be protected. Is F2C the only

option for it? Is that the only thing it can be applied for under? It's a bit of a

funny one because it's not really sport and it's but it is community use. Who

would in the event that it's agreed, who would do with the mowing? You know as it's

somebody else's land, would the association take on... how does that work?

I don't understand how can they go on and do what they need to do if they don't own the land?

My last question is is it sensible to defer it for this additional information to be provided?

So I'm going to be annoying again. I'm afraid we've got to consider the proposal that's in front of us

We haven't got a housing development in front of us. So we're not considering it against DS for other housing policies

We're considering the change of use to a class F

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 3:44:23

So even though we're protecting it...

The same protections in the MPPF and the local plan and the statutory protections apply to

this land whenever a proposal comes forward we have to look at them on a case -by -case

basis and we apply the relevant policy and legislation so we consider each

application its own merits but we're not considering that now we're considering

this proposal in front of us notwithstanding the intentions of the

application but that's not all we're considering we're considering whether

this proposed development is acceptable in accordance with the policies. So we have to

focus on that. So yes, the site would be outside the development boundaries, would be a DS4

site if it were housing. And yes, it would still be within the national landscape, so

we would apply the duty to further the conservation enhancement. I probably got those words wrong.

But all of those principles, but that's not applicable to this application because that's

what we are currently considering.

The manager on point.

I don't know if you want to go back.

Officer - 3:45:25

It has been recommended for refusal because we don't have that level of information.

It is insufficient detail.

If you look at policy INF2 in the local plan, I think that is outlined in the report.

And it does, that is something that proposals such as this would need to comply with and

give us information on.

So it's kind of insufficient information on how it would be managed.

And of course if they haven't got the rights to access it or mow it, then it's, yeah, I

guess that's why that information hasn't come forward.

I'm sorry, F2C, is that the only option for it?

The option has been put forward.

That's what they've applied for.

Consider that one.

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:46:14

Thank you. Now I saw a lot of...

I feel it is David, then Daryl, then Patrick.

Councillor David Fowles - 3:46:26

Paul, did you have your hand up again? And then Paul.

And then Paul. David, please.

This sounds like a Joseph Heller novel, Catch 22.

So just to be clear, they don't own the land but they can apply for this change of use.

Having got the change of use, that doesn't prevent Miller Homes or the land owner doing what they do.

And even with change of use, because they don't own the land, they have no agreement with the land owner.

They can't actually do anything on the land anyway.

We've had this situation in Bybury where we had a chunk of land there where the village wanted it to be designated green space.

But in order to do that, they had to get the permission of the landowner.

So I think Nikki was, I don't know whether she was in the course of your question, you

were suggesting deferring it.

It seems that if there was a recommendation to defer it, because it seems that we've got

quite a lot of unanswered information here, that it might be a sensible thing to defer

it.

Because otherwise, I might go out and create Down Amptey Greenfields Association, Driftfield

Greenfields Association and so on and so forth.

So are you proposing, Nikki,

that you might put forward a counter -proposal

to defer this application,

Councillor Nikki Ind - 3:47:39

pending more information or not?

Councillor David Fowles - 3:47:42

We're still in questions at the moment, David.

Well, it is a question. A question, okay.

But I'm directing it not at the office.

Councillor Nikki Ind - 3:47:53

I'm directing it to the vice -chairman.

Councillor David Fowles - 3:47:59

I think what I was trying to do was ask if colleagues thought that was a good idea at

this point.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 3:48:05

I'll ask the case officer, would it be a good idea to defer this application?

We are just here of the view that we've put a recommendation in front of you having

exhausted opportunities to discuss and develop it.

Obviously, members of your, it's here before you to make that, doesn't it make a decision

if you feel you want more information?

Is the committee could make the recommendation to defer it?

Yes, you're the decision maker.

Okay, thank you.

Councillor Daryl Corps - 3:48:26

I think Councillor Fells has basically said what I was about to say, but can we

put forward a proposal to defer this so that we can get the information from the Greenfield Association that is missing?

Because I completely see what they're trying to do and I think to give them some

support in getting that information would be a benefit to the community.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 3:48:58

Would the officer, I've got a new first question followed by the question I was

going to ask, would the officers agree with me that there's no point in

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 3:49:07

deferring it because there's no further relevant information that can be

achieved? If we were to defer the item we would certainly need instructions from

members as to what information you want us to go away and achieve. We also can't

give you any guarantee that we can get that information, we can only make a request

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 3:49:21

but obviously it is for members to make that decision, but I can't direct you on what to do.

It's your decision decision makers.

My real question is if we were to approve this application,

we'd have one potentially, somebody you disagree with in the form of the landowner,

would it be open to them to challenge us through judicial review?

Yes.

Councillor Paul Evans - 3:49:46

I would like to pick up on a point that I think the diversity officer made when you

talked about BNG being a legal requirement to demonstrate 10%. If we were to reject the

refusal and accept the proposal, the planning proposal, it is quite convoluted. My tiny

Officer - 3:50:26

struggling with it. Would we be factually breaking the law in that case with regard to legislation around BNG?

So it is a legislative requirement as I set out so if it was so every

application that's subject to BNG the condition is automatically applied it's

deemed condition which means it's not one that you'll see numbered on a

decision notice right so if it turns out that they do not benefit from the

Councillor Paul Evans - 3:50:50

and no other exemption applies, then yes, it would be an unlawful development.

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:50:54

An unlawful change of use. Correct. Yes. Thank you.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 3:50:59

Thank you for that poll. Ray? Thank you, Chair.

I don't see the need to defer it because if you look at the comments submitted by the applicant,

he says they've provided all the information that's necessary and they don't see the need to provide any further information.

So deferring it, in my opinion, would be pointless.

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:51:19

I think we've kind of blended into our final comments now before we go to a vote.

So would anybody like to summarise their view as we go forward?

Councillor David Fowles - 3:51:35

It seems to me this is more a legal issue than a planning issue. I applaud the concept

behind it, but it seems to me that I don't think I'm in a position to make a decision,

because if we approve it or go against the officer's recommendation, given what's going

happen tomorrow, I think we are opening potential floodgates for something, which is why I felt

deferring it was the better solution. I didn't quite hear what Ray said about the applicants'

comments. I wonder if he could repeat it. If we can't defer it, I believe we have got

Councillor Paul Evans - 3:52:30

option but to go with the officer's recommendation. Thank you. I fully applaud

the applicant's objectives with this application. Regrettably the planning

rules as they stand mean that I would be wary of a floodgates opening on similar

change of use policies plus judicial review and the accordant costs that may

come to this council and therefore regrettably really really regrettably

because I absolutely applaud and support the motives I would be minded to accept

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:53:11

Councillor Daryl Corps - 3:53:16

vote to accept officers recommendations. Thank you Paul. Darryl. Yeah thank you I

incredibly well -meaning and I'm sure we would have heard about this sort of

local action groups across the country against potential speculative

overdevelopment. But bearing in mind what Councillor Fowls and Councillor Evans have

said as well I am kind of in agreement with them that there is a worry of

opening up these floodgates and it's a very strange situation and that we're

with I really don't feel I can go against the officers recommendation at this point.

Councillor Nikki Ind - 3:54:00

Thank you very much.

I'm going to turn over to Nicky.

This is a really, really difficult one for me personally because I know the land, I know

the residents, but I'm also mindful of my position and the position we find ourselves

in legally. So I'm really struggling with this because I understand that the intention

is to protect this piece of land, but if we're going to look at a judicial review and an

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:54:39

appeal, I'm finding this a really difficult one for me.

Councillor David Fowles - 3:54:43

David?

Bearing in mind that we all seem to applaud the intention behind it, and there seems to

be to be unanswered questions, and we seem to be moving towards refusal, I think someone

should put forward a proposal, a counter proposal, which is to defer it.

So I'm going to do that on the basis that if no one supports me, fine, we've at least

aired it.

So I'm going to offer a counterproposal which is to defer this application.

I don't know if anyone else is willing to second me.

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:55:19

Councillor David Fowles - 3:55:26

The reason for deferral, David, if you could summarise that.

I think there's insufficient information.

The implications are far reaching on this application.

I don't feel comfortable we've got enough information to determine it.

I'm looking at Harrison for a bit of guidance on giving us some reasons to defer.

I thought it was because we were uncertain about the implications

as articulated by your Deputy Chairman.

But it doesn't seem I'm getting any support for a second or anyway,

so probably it's redundant unless Michael's...

No. No? Michael?

I'm not supporting it.

Okay, no one is supporting it.

Okay.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 3:56:07

We certainly need to have a reason.

You know, the idea of deferring it is that we go away, we seek further information,

we need to know exactly what you want us to find.

Councillor David Fowles - 3:56:20

What information are you requiring?

One clarification with the landowner and the applicant about what can and cannot be done.

That would be...

I think we have that from the...

It doesn't seem I've got any support for it.

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:56:32

So I'm just I'm offering it up as a proposal. That's all.

Yeah, I'm not seeing support

to second this motion.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 3:56:45

I've got Patrick then Paul.

Freedom of the older man. I'm going to propose to approve the recommendation.

To approve the application.

I am approving the application. That is my proposal. I probably won't get a second.

I don't have to give a reason to approve, do I?

No, I am recommending to accept the application. When we approve an application, we don't,

I mean, just okay, this may not get very far, but my recollection is when you vote to approve

something the conditions are either some conditions you think of or some conditions the officers

suggest when they're going the other way.

But basically I'm going to go with the human approach.

Here is a bunch, quite a lot of local people from a decent town with decent councillors

trying to do a decent thing and I want to approve it.

But I'll be a bit surprised if I win.

Point of order.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 3:57:54

The officer's recommendation is to refuse.

If Councillor Colm wants to recommend something different, he has to state reasons why he's

going against the officer's recommendation.

That's in the terms of reference, the constitution.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 3:58:09

He has to state the reasons and he hasn't stated them.

I consider that this is a welcome and suitable application for the future use and protection

of land from respectable, decent residents for one of the finest objectives in the country

and the fact that we've got an accidental black hole created by very sound legislation

and biodiversity gain doesn't mean we can never make an exception in my view.

Whenever for instance there's a place called the Cotswold National Landscape which in some

people's view has been incredibly wrecked for several square miles by the forthcoming

missing link road. We found a reason to ignore the national landscape, whoever gave the permission

did in that case. And on the other side, I'm finding a reason to ignore bureaucracy on

this side and go with sound principles of planning, sound principles of recreation.

Yes, I don't expect to get one, but don't worry about it.

Councillor Ian Watson - 3:59:11

I don't see a seconder for your proposal, Patrick.

I'm going to go back to the officers.

Paul and Ray.

Oh, excuse me.

Councillor Paul Evans - 3:59:26

I've got Paul and then Ray to summarise before we go to the vote.

My initial reaction was to look to defer this and then I look at the information that we have

and wonder whether the applicant has provided everything they possibly can in an attempt to satisfy the policy requirements of INF2.

And I regrettably come to the conclusion that I think they probably have.

I do not believe there is any further information that can be gleaned that would satisfy that

policy recommendation. As colleagues have said, I am absolutely in support of maintaining

green space, but I am acutely conscious of the legalities that we as a council find ourselves

in and the difficult situation we would find ourselves in should we create precedent and

allow this application and it absolutely is heartbreaking to have to do this but

we are constrained by unfortunately in my view the law so I propose that we

Officer - 4:00:37

accept officers recommendations. I second that. Sorry excuse me chair can I just

jump in a moment as well so I just before I just wanted to highlight in the

reason for refusal for I have checked recheck the mapping for the floods and

it isn't in under the new environment agency flood maps it isn't in zones two

and three so I just wanted permission really just to omit that part of the

sentence it still does require a flood risk assessment because it's over one

hectare in size but just that one sentence isn't relevant to it so

apologies that's that's my fault for not noticing I just wanted to flag it up to

to members really.

Councillor Ian Watson - 4:01:22

So I have a

Proposer I have a seconder

to go ahead

To support the officers recommendation. I've not spoken on this yet

So I'm going to take this opportunity before we do go to the vote that I agree

with the sentiment that we have to do everything we can to save our green spaces.

I'm just not sure this is the way.

For legal reasons, it would leave us wide open as a council.

But I am also comforted by the fact

that if there ever was a development proposed for this place, it would come before this

house. We would have the chance to review that proposal rather than a change of land

use. And that's my view.

Councillor David Fowles - 4:03:42

I don't know what are the rules in terms of how long we can sit for?

We carry on sitting?

There are no rules.

13 26/01821/PLP - Land to the South of Manor Court, Eastleach

Officer - 4:06:01

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

So this is as, yes, this is land to the south of Manor Court in East Leech. It's an application

for permission in principle and what is described as the erection of one modest single -storey

dwelling. As members will be aware, the scope of the permission in principle application

is limited to location, land use and the amount of development. As set out in the officer

report there are three reasons for refusal. It's probably worth stating also

at this point that the application has been referred to Planning and Licencing

Committee for determination in accordance with the council's adopted

scheme of delegation as the applicant is related to an elected ward member. In

light of this also there was an advanced site inspection last Wednesday where

that most members attended, that's given the public interest but also in the interest

is transparency. So I've got a very, very quick presentation. So that's the application

site as outlined in red. The site location plan is the one submitted in support of the

application and is also in the committee schedule. The land outlined in blue is also within the

applicant's ownership. An indicative site plan has also been submitted by the applicant.

Again that's in the committee schedule. Just included an aerial photograph. So the

application site is, I can't see my cursor, but as you can see the Manor Farm House which

been converted into six flats and below that is the application site. The orange is some

listed buildings and the green is art and tree preservation orders.

That's just a plan showing the boundary of the conservation area which includes the Manor

Farmhouse with the application site just to the the southwest of that and the whole area

is within the Cotswolds national landscape. I've just included some historic maps just to show

that the land which is currently considered to be agricultural land so a paddock stroke orchard

historically you can see on the first edition ordinance survey it contains it looks like it

was an orchard by the second edition ordinance survey it's been sort of incorporated into

larger agricultural field, the same by the third edition Ordnance Survey.

And this sort of lasted up until about the 1960s, 1980s, although sort of subsequent

to that in about the 1980s when permission was granted to subdivide the manor house,

the paddock area was also sort of fenced off, so that's when it was sort of separated from

the wider agricultural field. That's just 2000 so you can just see where that has

been fenced off so that was sort of in the 80s 90s 1990s. And then that's just

some photographs so that's looking south into the site. That's looking north back

up. That's looking southwest to the agricultural field beyond. There is as

noted in the officer report whilst the site is largely undeveloped there is a

greenhouse adjacent to the the boundary wall of the ward garden and that's just

looking towards a second field access into the adjoining fields and then

that's just back to the site location plan as submitted by the applicant or I

also have an aerial photograph I don't know which would be easier for members

Councillor Ian Watson - 4:10:21

to sort of visualise a site but I'll just leave it as that for now and that's

it thank you chair thank you very much indeed looking at my list of speakers on

application. We have an email from the parish council, which I will ask democratic services

to read out later. I have got Mr Roderick Wordie and Peter Lang. David, do you wish

speak on this? Mr. Lang, Mr. Wordy, you will have three minutes to talk. David, you will

have five minutes. We're going to time this. So I think the first on my list is Mr. Wordy.

Whenever you're ready, if you press the button on the microphone

and we will start recording the time.

That's right.

Yeah. Whenever you're ready, please start speaking.

Chair, members of the committee,

Objector - 4:11:35

I strongly support the planning officer's clear recommendation

to refuse permission at this site.

I'm an immediate neighbour to the applicant residing

at the wall garden.

My letter of objection was posted on 9th of July.

A permission in principle application is restricted to location, land use and amount of development.

When you examine this application against these criteria, it fails on every single count.

Location.

This site sits in open countryside on the sensitive rural edge of East Leach, which means policy DS4 applies.

The site sits within the Cotswold natural landscape and immediately adjacent to the East Leach conservation area.

A single building on this agricultural site will create a precedent for the domestication

of agricultural land outside a village boundary.

It will fail to enhance or protect the Cotswold natural landscape, contrary to CDC's policies

EN4, EN5 and sections 2 and 11 of the NPPF.

A dwelling here would damage the setting of our designated heritage assets and be contrary

to local planning policies EN10, EN11, EN12 and Chapters 2 and 16 of the NPPF.

The site is landlocked. The site has no legal right of easement for vehicles and or services.

Land use. This site is agricultural land. The applicant previously attempted to claim

this land was a residential garden but this council rightly refused the Certificate of

orphanage application on the 15th of April 26.

Change the land use from agriculture to residential

brings domestic encroachment, permanent paraphernalia,

lighting and visual intrusion.

It arose a historic landscape character

and sets a dangerous precedent for piecemeal development

encroaching onto agricultural fields

along a village boundary.

Amount of development.

Whilst the rest of a single storey dwelling stands modest,

any amount of residential development

on this undeveloped, sensitive site is excessive and contrary to planning and conservation policies.

A single dwelling offers negligible public benefit to Cotswolds District housing supply,

nor does it address the local need for affordable social housing identified in the parish.

The minimum benefit is significantly and diminutrally outweighed by the permanent, irreversible harm

it causes to our conservation area and national landscape.

In conclusion, the location is isolated, landlocked and the proposed land uses destroys valuable

agricultural open space.

The Planning Officer's recommendation is thorough, sound and legally grounded.

I urge the Committee to protect East Leach and refuse this application.

Thank you.

Thank you very much Mr Worthy.

If I can move on now to Mr Peter Lyman.

Applicant/Agent - 4:14:34

Good afternoon chair members. A flat in the adjacent Manor farmhouse has been the applicant's

main home with his partner Councillor Mansilla for the last 15 years. The proposal will be

there forever home allowing them to continue to live in and contribute to their community.

A high quality sustainable dwelling appropriate to its setting is intended. The proposal before

was guided by pre -application advice received last year. This feedback, which

the committee report fails to mention and contradicts, was positive. It indicated

that with an appropriate design and due to the lack of a five -year housing

supply, planning permission could be granted. The pre -app feedback

acknowledged that the site is not agricultural land as members will have

seen on site. It has a domestic appearance and use with a greenhouse

maintained lawn and established trees. These are all features visible from aerial photography

dating back over 40 years. An application to regularise this use was refused by officers

in April with no counter evidence provided. The first two reasons for refusal relate to

alleged harm to the Cotswold National Landscape and nearby heritage assets. The officer report

fails to consider the mature trees which screen the site, the prominent garage at the neighbouring

walled garden and a lack of public views from the surrounding area. The Pre -App feedback correctly

confirms that a single -storey, sympathetically designed scheme could be accepted. Should permission

be granted today, the applicants will follow this advice. The third reason relates to the alleged

lack of access. On your site visit you would have seen that this is not true, with access

available from the same shared lane serving multiple existing properties. Also, access

is not a consideration for this type of application and the red line only needs to include the

site itself. Boundary disputes or restrictive covenants, as mentioned by neighbour objections,

are civil matters, not planning considerations.

The Council's pre -app assessment

and the submitted documents demonstrate the site

can accommodate a carefully designed,

modest dwelling without unacceptable impacts.

Additional weight needs to be given

to the Council's housing situation,

just as it has been with recent large urban extensions.

This proposal offers a deliverable contribution

to the unmet need, and the Peel President

confirms that this should be given significant weight even for one

dwelling. We therefore respectfully ask the committee to follow the council's

pre -app assessment, reject the recommended refusal reasons and grant

permission in principle. Thank you for your time.

Julia Gibson, Officer - 4:17:42

Please accept the East Leach Parish Council's apologies for absence. The

council believes that this proposal will not protect or enhance the intrinsic

character and beauty of the national landscape. Although the dwelling is

described as modest, we believe that small incremental changes to the

village and landscape have the most detrimental effect, increasing with each

small change over time. We believe the site location will encroach on the

conservation area. The transitionary space between the built settlement and the open

farmland will be lost. The site has always been known as an orchard. The change of use

from agricultural to residential land would fail to protect or enhance the character of

the Cotswold National Landscape. The application does not address the village's documented

need for social affordable rented housing. The council is extremely disappointed that

applicant has not taken the opportunity to submit a plan to support the

application by showing how the site would be accessed from the public

highway. Although we understand this is a private matter and they are not legally

required to do so, this is a missed opportunity. If no satisfactory highway

access can be found, this application will have been a complete waste of time

Councillor Ian Watson - 4:19:11

for all the paid and voluntary officers involved in this process at a time when

resources should be used diligently.

Thank you very much, Julia.

David, on to you.

Ward Member - 4:19:23

You have got five minutes if you need them.

Just to reassure you, members, I don't need five minutes.

Firstly, can I thank the officer for her report.

There's obviously some history on this site.

There is also quite a lot of emotion on this site with both the parish council and the

residents of the existing house as articulated by the objector.

Thank you again to members for going on the site visit where you can see first hand the

nature of this particular site and East Leach.

and as I described East Leach to you at the site meeting,

it was referred to by John Betjeman back in the 60s

as the most beautiful village in England.

And it's in that context that we need to really look

at this application.

You've also seen a huge amount of information

that's been provided by the applicant and the agent.

I'm a bit surprised that the comments from the agent,

which referred to the desire of the applicant and a fellow

Councillor to make this their forever home, because I've been

the ward member there for three years and I've never ever seen

the ward member, my colleague there at all.

I'm very surprised, very surprised, that if there was

a desire to want to work with the village and the parish

council, why?

There was no attempt to engage with the parish council, to show

the parish council what the intentions were for this land. It seems very, very surprising.

The site, as we've heard, sits within the Cotswold National Landscape, immediately adjacent

to East Leach Conservation Area. In my opinion, Manor Court and its setting in mature gardens

surrounded by open countryside on at least two sides is an important heritage asset,

and any development here would neither enhance or protect the Cotswold National Landscape

and is contrary to policy as has been articulated by the objector.

As you've heard previously from the objector and the parish council, there is at best confusion

over the nature of this land and when it suddenly became a garden.

The agent said it's been a garden for 40 years.

The history of the site shown by the slides, the old maps from Joanne clearly shows to

me that this is agricultural land and is still referred to as the orchard by all who know

it. And those trees that were in the garden that have been commented on, as far as they're

concerned, they're part of the orchard. And so change of use would, I think, fail to protect

or enhance the character of the conservation area.

There is huge risk associated with granting planning permission in principle, as we found,

if you remember that application in Shedworth, where it's

something and nothing.

You grant an application for planning and principle,

and then what happens?

You have no idea what's going to go there.

And in this case, it's further complicated by the fact

that there is no access.

It's fine for the agent to say on behalf of the applicant that

there is a drive there, but there's a covenant on it,

and it's clear from everything I've read that the owners of

that drive, the shared ownership, are not in favour of granting any form of access should

we be granting planning in principle. I know that the Covenant doesn't carry any planning

weight, but it seems bizarre that we're in a situation where we could grant planning

in principle for a house that you couldn't access. How would people get to it? How would

they live? Would they walk to it? I'm not quite sure where this actually goes. So the

creation of a small single dwelling offers no public benefit to the Cotswolds housing

land supply, does nothing to address the local need for affordable housing, which has been

identified by the villagers as being an important thing and they would like to see some affordable

housing in there and if that may well take the form of some windfall. The appraisal and

subsequent development could cause irreversible harm to the Cotswold National Landscape and

to this very, very important heritage asset. I can't overstate enough how important this

is to the setting of East Leach, not only to the people who live there but to

everybody else who enjoys that village. I support the concerns raised

by the parish council and the objector and I would strongly, strongly urge you

to support the officers recommendation and send a clear message that this

application will not receive planning in principle. Thank you very much.

Councillor Ian Watson - 4:24:02

Thank you. If the speakers would like to return to their seats.

Yes, please.

Can I just make a statement?

I was going to.

We'll do it.

You can respond.

I'm very comfortable with that.

Just let him.

Legal Services - 4:25:26

Chair, if I may. Please go ahead.

Apologies for those discussions. Following the ward member's conclusion of his speech,

I'm concerned that you may not be approaching this matter with an open mind and transparency

Councillor David Fowles - 4:25:57

and therefore I feel you must reflect as to your position and not take part in this item

any further. Okay I'd like to put on record, and I really mean this, that I did

come into this room with an open mind, okay, because I'm very mindful of the

reason this application is here, is because it's a fellow member of this

council, all right, and I, but when I heard what was being said by the agent on

behalf of the applicant, I freely state that I changed my view and yes, I am very, very

Councillor Ian Watson - 4:26:37

against this site. So I'm delighted to leave the room. Okay? Thank you very much.

Thank you, James.

That changed my mind.

Thank you for that. Thank you, Marie. Both those comments are now on the record.

Councillor Ian Watson - 4:26:49

Thank you.

The next, before we go to our summary conclusions and the vote, are there any questions?

Site visits.

Oh, of course. I'm sorry about that. We had a site visit to the, to East...

East Leach.

East Leach and would anybody like to give impressions?

Councillor Nikki Ind - 4:27:21

Yes, so I attended the site visit. Yes, it's clearly an agricultural area, an orchard.

In fact, in the next field we spotted a hare.

Clearly a historic paddock orchard. I don't know how long the fence had been in separating the orchard from the field area.

But I did note that within that field area, although it's got a five bar gate where you see it, what you don't see is there's a gravelled area with chairs and a fire pit.

So quite, you know, domesticated and access appeared to be tricky.

I mean behind the gates, you went through the gates, behind the gates there was a car parked.

So it's definitely being used from a domesticated point of view.

There's a car parked, there's a glass house, there's seating.

Clearly that's not been approved.

it's not a garden and so that's that's I'm assuming another whole another issue

but that's what I observed for me it was what was historically been an orchard in

a field there was a fence that had gone down the middle of it but the other side

of the fence in what was a field was a gravelled area and a lots of lots of

Councillor Ian Watson - 4:28:53

domestic paraphernalia in an area which I now understand isn't a garden

Thank you, Nikki. Would anybody else like to say anything about the visit?

Councillor Daryl Corps - 4:29:02

Darryl?

Yes, thank you. Obviously, it's a beautiful village, classic Cotswold. That's one of the

most beautiful ones in that area, I think. And obviously, the Manor House, a very incredibly

imposing Victorian mansion, which we then walked around the gravel shared driveway to

this area that clearly had a feeling of being agricultural land, even though there had been

some sort of superficial domesticated elements in there, such as a glass house and seating

and such like. But you could absolutely got the feeling that this was still an area that

was predominantly agriculture. We had the orchard there and other trees and as Nick

said you could look out across the field still. It didn't feel like it had been completely

cut off from the fields. It was still quite open, hence we saw the natural wildlife such

as hares. And it just seemed very close to the Manor House and another property. And

and it was obviously within a very beautiful part of Eastley.

Councillor Ian Watson - 4:30:22

I was on the side briefing as well and I concur absolutely, Darryl.

It's a very beautiful part of the world.

On one side it did ease my mind about access.

Those were the questions I had, but the drive there,

I understand it's shared, but that is not inclusive.

But I also agree about the agricultural feel of the area.

I think Nikki mentioned we saw a hair 20 metres away from us in the paddock, fruit trees.

Councillor Ian Watson - 4:31:07

It was pretty idyllic. I did like it. So those were my views.

I would like to go on now to any questions for the officer from members.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 4:31:16

Questions on fact.

Ray, please go ahead.

Yes, please.

Officer - 4:31:25

Can we clarify whether the access is a material consideration for planning and principle,

where it is or it isn't?

As stated in my officer report, rights of access are private matters between the parties

involved. The concerns that officers have is there have been several third -party

objections stating that the applicant doesn't have the right to use that

access which in turn raises concerns that if the applicant can't use that

access is a new access required. So it's the ambiguity surrounding

whether that access can actually be utilised. So at the end of the day it's

it is essentially a private matter for those parties involved but I think it

raises quite a few questions if that access cannot be utilised. So that's

why within the refusal reason I've said insufficient information because we're

trying to get further clarity.

And also there's been a lot of,

there's been two appeal decisions

where the red line has been called into question,

whether an access should be included within a red line

or whether it shouldn't.

One, the inspector said yes,

the other, the inspector said no.

There's also a High Court judgement from 2001

where the judge said that in that instance

it didn't need to be included, but he did say that if operational development or a change of use was required to create a further access, then it should.

So it's just the ambiguity surrounding and the sort of the questions when you've got one party saying yes we can and another party saying no we can't.

I think it's reasonable for officers to query that and also just, you know, address that issue in the interest of transparency and everybody involved.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 4:33:37

So that's why that's the third refusal reason. It's actually an insufficient information refusal reason.

Is it worth mentioning about?

We are proposing for clarity removing the first sentence from the third refusal reason

so it starts insufficient information just so it's perfectly clear what the refusal

relates to. Obviously it's for members to determine the application but we were going

to recommend on that. Page 211 it's 0 .3 the third refusal reason so just that first

sentence and we were just proposing we omit that sentence just so we can get straight

into the insufficient information point and it's hopefully then a little clearer

in terms of what the refusal reason is obviously members for members to

Officer - 4:34:19

determine that yeah we would propose that amendment if members are minded to

accept the officer's recommendation. Can I just quickly add that I think sort of

also that I would in my professional opinion refusal reasons one and two

would carry more weight but the third refusal reason has been added just

because there is that lack of clarification

and those questions have been raised.

Councillor Ian Watson - 4:34:39

Councillor Daryl Corps - 4:34:43

Thank you, Joanne.

Daryl, I think you're next.

So yes, so obviously it is agricultural land.

There's been no change of use at all, regardless of someone

putting up a greenhouse and a couple of deck chairs.

That doesn't change anything, does it?

I was also asking, I wasn't making a statement.

So is this within any curtledge

of the grade two listed building at all?

No, it's separate.

So historically it was part of a larger agricultural field

looking at the planning history for the site

and also the photographs that we've have on record.

It probably got fenced off in about the 1980s,

which sort of corresponds when the Manor House

itself was converted into six flats and also a house built within in the walled

garden. Yes, which we saw on the site. So even though we hear from the applicants agents saying that it's

been domesticated that doesn't have any material change to to the the

Officer - 4:35:49

clarification that it is a agricultural land still. Yes that's correct. So sort of

and also orchard land default to an agricultural use?

Obviously, I mean, with regards to the table and chairs,

does that constitute development?

I'd say not.

Also, is it actually that unusual to have a glass house

or something like that in an orchard or a paddock?

Again, probably not, but it is separate from garden land.

there was a certificate of lawfulness earlier this year which another officer

dealt with and as part of that to demonstrate that the land had been used

as garden it would have to be for a continuous period of ten years and we

determined that that was that was not the case so in planning terms it

Councillor Ian Watson - 4:36:45

defaults to to agriculture.

Councillor Nikki Ind - 4:36:47

Councillor Linn. Thank you. So it's a bit tricky with this access isn't it? So if the

applicant, the applicant clearly from when we made the site visit, they're part of that

property that they own currently is directly next to this and they clearly have the right

to drive up to there because they were parked there. They obviously don't have the right

to put that car inside there although it was there was a car inside there that's

clearly not a parking space inside that orchard if that's what we're going to

say you know that is so if they keep their current residents technically they

could drive up to their old property and walk to the new house I'm assuming my

second part of I says that's my first question so I don't know how that

changes anything but my second part is planning in principle doesn't actually

tell us where the house is going to go. So they might give us an indicative on

there but that doesn't mean that's where it's going to go. They might want to take

all those trees out and pop a house on there. Now that would have to come

back to us I know. But so again I'm just trying to understand just giving in it

pranning in principle I find quite tricky because it's not detailed enough

for me. There might be a house there but there could be a house anywhere within

that red line because we're saying that you could put a property and if we if we

approved it we would say you could put a property within that area and I find

Officer - 4:38:23

that just a little bit bit bit difficult really. So in response to the first part

of the question so access is essentially a private matter or civil matter it's my

understanding that anybody who lives in one of those six flats has the right to

access you know use that driveway to access their property whether somebody

can physically take a car into that field I mean that again that would be a

private private matter with regards to the second question the property can go

anywhere potentially within the red line I in the applicants defence majority of

the trees that we saw are actually outside the red line I think there were

Councillor Nikki Ind - 4:39:15

couple but I don't know if we can get can we get that plan back up? Can I just

ask another question? So the only other thing that concerns me is why do I know

nothing about this pre -application advice that we were that we gave so that

the applicant's agent tells us was very positive and we said it was

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 4:39:32

okay. Pre -applications are confidential so they're not in the public domain. The

applicants quoted parts of that pre -application but obviously you haven't got a copy of the

thing in front of you but they are confidential and then the full copy hasn't been provided

as part of the application but yeah it's effectively the applicant's property so it's for them if they

wish to provide it as part of the application but in this case we've got snippets of it within the

written statement but not the full thing.

Officer - 4:39:58

Did I cover everything?

It was just the house going around the orchard so we were just looking at the red line again.

So we're doing that separately.

Councillor Ian Watson - 4:40:25

Any more, Nikki?

No, thank you, sorry.

Okay.

Joanne, I was gonna ask you a question

about the land definition,

but you've already answered that. Thank you very much indeed.

Councillor Ian Watson - 4:41:14

Sorry, I'm not on.

Is a reading through one of what is probably going to guide me is chapter 11 of the National

planning policy framework, MBBF, which talks about buildings in this historic kind of environment.

And we saw from the maps going back to the 1800s, was it, quite some time, that it is a historic

area. Things, of course, have changed, but it still retains that historic feel.

I noticed that when I took the walk in the paddock.

Councillor Ian Watson - 4:42:14

So that is probably what's going to guide me when I make my decision.

Councillor Daryl Corps - 4:42:19

Daryl, please.

Is it too early to recommend that we accept the officer's recommendation on the grounds

that it's in the Crossroad National Landscape adjacent to the conservation area

and in agricultural land and we don't know where it will go within that. Do I have a seconder for that?

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 4:42:46

Seconded by Councillor Inge and I think unless there's any more comments we'll go straight to

Councillor Ian Watson - 4:42:54

the vote. Are we happy with that our proposed amendment to refuse reason three just removing

that first sentence. Yeah, I think we're happy that and the officers recommendation

is to refuse.

I think the five councils have got five votes, five for the recommendation, zero

against and zero abstention. So thank you very much indeed. Thank you. Thank you members

of the public for coming today. Council is for the light shift and officers for the light

14 Sites Inspection Briefing

Councillor Ian Watson - 4:43:36

shift. Thank you very much indeed. I have got a couple of announcements to make before

we go. These announcements are just for councillors and members of the public

May leave.

Sights inspection briefing.

David, have you got one?

We haven't got one, have we?

Not currently.

No sights inspection briefing?

Not at present. We tend to know until we've got the review.

But I've got, we do have a licencing which I want to announce.

Do you need to talk about it? Yeah.

Is Councillor Fowls still...

He's gone. We think he's gone.

Did he take his things with him?

Okay. Just to finish off before we go home,

there may be a site inspection briefing on the 2nd

of September, 2026.

If required, there's nothing confirmed

at this moment in time.

I'm sure our brilliant Democratic Service officers will

reach out to us. We have a couple of licencing subcommittees coming up on the

19th of August at 2 p .m. down for Councillor Watson. But Darrell, I know

you're away at that time and Nick Bridges is also not able to attend. I

if there's anybody who could sub for that I would be really happy.

If not,

if you don't know now, please contact Julia

and we'll decide that in the future. And then on the 20th of August at 2 p .m.

there's a taxi

licence meeting.

Again with Councillor Ian Watson. I should be on piecework here. I'm bringing everybody meeting going.

Councillor Ian Watson, Julia Judd, Michael Van and Ray Brasington and David Fowles are the people involved in that meeting.

I'm on holiday then.

Ray is on holiday. I'll cross you off Ray.

How many do we need to be quarant for that?

Three.

Three to be quarant. Okay.

Ninety.

15 Licensing Sub-Committee

I have also the very last statement from me. Where's my green paper gone?

Well it's short green paper but yeah.

14 Sites Inspection Briefing

Is that a reminder for when we go on site inspection briefings to wear closed shoes and high vis jackets.

I know last time we were walking through a garden it didn't feel that dangerous.

but next time might be a building site or a something. There are high -vis jackets

in this little box here. I've got about 15 at home but if you don't have one

15 Licensing Sub-Committee

you're very welcome to pick one up here.

Webcast Finished - 4:46:57

And ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.

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 CommitteeTuesday, 11th August 2026 at 2:00pm

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:00:00

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:00:00

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:01:58

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:02:04

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:02:10

Councillor David Fowles - 0:02:15

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:02:23

Councillor Nikki Ind - 0:02:28

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:02:34

Officer - 0:02:48

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:02:54

Legal Services - 0:02:59

Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:03:03

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:03:13

1 Apologies

Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:03:21

3 Declarations of Interest

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:03:38

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:03:46

Councillor David Fowles - 0:04:21

4 Minutes

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:08:18

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:08:25

3 Declarations of Interest

Legal Services - 0:08:30

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:08:55

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:09:01

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:09:50

4 Minutes

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:10:10

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:10:22

5 Chair's Announcements

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:11:03

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:12:25

6 Public questions

7 Member questions

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:12:42

Schedule of Applications

8 25/02443/FUL - Land to the West of Fosseway Farm, Moreton-In-Marsh

Officer - 0:13:23

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:24:33

Legal Services - 0:24:45

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:25:05

Legal Services - 0:25:09

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:25:13

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:25:44

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:26:23

Town/Parish Council - 0:26:47

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:28:36

Supporter - 0:28:50

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:32:01

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:32:11

Councillor David Fowles - 0:32:30

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:32:40

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:32:59

Applicant/Agent - 0:33:09

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:36:13

Ward Member - 0:36:19

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:40:27

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:41:03

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:43:16

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:43:23

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:44:25

Councillor David Fowles - 0:44:30

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:46:40

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:46:43

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:46:57

Councillor Nikki Ind - 0:46:59

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:47:44

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:48:56

Councillor David Fowles - 0:49:10

Officer - 0:50:08

Legal Services - 0:50:33

Councillor David Fowles - 0:51:11

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:51:37

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:51:40

Officer - 0:52:21

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:52:50

Planning and Licensing Committee
Tuesday, 11th August 2026 at 2:00pm