Planning and Licensing Committee - Wednesday 9 September 2026, 2:00pm - Vote_events Tab

Planning and Licensing Committee
Wednesday, 9th September 2026 at 2:00pm

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Nick Bridges
Councillor Nikki Ind
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Dilys Neill
Julia Gibson, Officer
Legal Services
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Officer
Officer
Officer
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill

1 Apologies

Share this agenda point

Julia Gibson, Officer

2 Substitute Members

Share this agenda point

Councillor Dilys Neill

3 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Dilys Neill
Legal Services
Councillor Dilys Neill

4 Minutes

Share this agenda point

Minutes , 11/08/2026 Planning and Licensing Committee

Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
04. To confirm the minutes of the Planning Committe held on 11 August 2026
Status: Ended

5 Chair's Announcements

Share this agenda point

Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill

6 Public questions

Share this agenda point

7 Member questions

Share this agenda point

Schedule of Applications

Share this agenda point

Planning & Licensing Committee - 9 September 2026 - Index of Applications

8 25/03800/FUL - Bourton Industrial Park, Bourton-on-the-Water

Share this agenda point

Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Town/Parish Council
Councillor Dilys Neill
Applicant/Agent
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Nick Bridges
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Nick Bridges
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Daryl Corps
Officer
Councillor Daryl Corps
Officer
Councillor Daryl Corps
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Officer
Councillor David Fowles
Officer
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor David Fowles
Officer
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Officer
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Officer
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Officer
Councillor Julia Judd
Officer
Councillor Julia Judd
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Paul Evans
Officer
Councillor Paul Evans
Officer
Councillor Paul Evans
Officer
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Nick Bridges
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Nikki Ind
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Daryl Corps
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Nick Bridges
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
08. 25/03800/FUL Bourton Industrial Park, Bourton-on-the-Water - PERMIT
Status: In progress
08. 25/03800/FUL Bourton Industrial Park, Bourton-on-the-Water - PERMIT
Status: Ended

9 26/01098/FUL - Dial House Hotel, High Street, Bourton-on-the-Water

Share this agenda point

Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
Town/Parish Council
Councillor Dilys Neill
Objector
Supporter
Councillor Dilys Neill
Applicant/Agent
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Julia Judd
Legal Services
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Nick Bridges
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Paul Evans
Officer
Councillor Paul Evans
Officer
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Officer
Councillor David Fowles
Officer
Councillor David Fowles
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Officer
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Ray Brassington
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Julia Judd
Officer
Councillor Julia Judd
Officer
Legal Services
Officer
Councillor Julia Judd
Officer
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Julia Judd
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Nikki Ind
Officer
Councillor Nikki Ind
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Officer
Councillor Paul Evans
Officer
Councillor Paul Evans
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
09. 26/01098/FUL Dial House Hotel, Bourton-on-the-Water - PERMIT
Status: In progress
09. 26/01098/FUL Dial House Hotel, Bourton-on-the-Water - PERMIT
Status: Ended
09. 26/01098/FUL Dial House Hotel, Bourton-on-the-Water - PERMIT as amended
Status: In progress
09. 26/01098/FUL Dial House Hotel, Bourton-on-the-Water - PERMIT as amended
Status: Ended

9 26/01098/FUL - Dial House Hotel, High Street, Bourton-on-the-Water

Share this agenda point

Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill

10 Tree Preservation Order - 26/00002 - The Folly, West End Gardens, Fairford

Share this agenda point

Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Objector
Supporter
Councillor Dilys Neill
Julia Gibson, Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Nikki Ind
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Officer
Councillor Nick Bridges
Officer
Councillor Nick Bridges
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Nick Bridges
Councillor Nikki Ind
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Nick Bridges
Councillor Dilys Neill
10. 26/00002/TPO The Folly, Fairford - CONFIRM
Status: In progress
10. 26/00002/TPO The Folly, Fairford - CONFIRM
Status: Ended
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Nick Bridges
Councillor Dilys Neill
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Nick Bridges
Councillor Dilys Neill
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles

11 National Scheme of Delegation (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions Regulations 2026)

Share this agenda point

Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Nikki Ind
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Paul Evans
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Dilys Neill

12 Sites Inspection Briefing

Share this agenda point

13 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 Dilys Neill - 0:00:00

Welcome to this meeting of Cotswolds District Council's Planning Committee.

I'm Delis Neel. I am currently Chair of Planning Committee.

I represent Stowe on the Wold in the north of the district.

So I'd like to welcome all members of public watching at home.

I know there are some people who watch on a regular basis and send us comments,

which is always welcome.

I'd also like to welcome all of you who've taken the trouble to attend this

meeting here this afternoon.

So can I just ask you, if you're here, could you please make sure your phone is

switched off or on silent and can I ask all the members as well to make sure

they're not going to make a noise in the middle of the proceedings. Members of the

public, you're not allowed to talk to members of the committee, even if it's

your own ward council or somebody you know. Please don't engage with us in

conversation and you're not also, please don't interrupt proceedings. The people

who are registered as public speakers will be allowed

to speak, and I'll explain that in a minute.

But nobody else is allowed to speak during the proceedings.

So for those of you watching at home, we will take,

when we come to the vote, it will be done

by an electronic means unless there is a fault,

in which case we'll resort to a show of hands.

But you should be able to see the results of the vote coming

up on your screens at home.

So public speakers, thank you very much

for putting yourselves forward to speak.

You're allowed to speak for three minutes.

And we will cut you off at the end of three minutes.

So if you think you may have too much material,

could you just please condense it

and put the most important bits first?

Because we will allow you to finish your sentence,

but we won't allow you to go on for longer than,

much longer than three minutes.

I think that's all I have to say.

So now I'd like to ask members to introduce themselves,

starting with my Vice Chair.

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:02:06

Good afternoon, I'm Julia,

Councillor Julia Judd, I'm in Maud.

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:02:14

Good afternoon, I'm Darryl Core,

District Councillor for Moreton in Marsh,

West in the North Cotswolds.

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:02:26

Good afternoon, my name is Paul Evans. I'm the Ward Councillor for the Beaches in Sirencester.

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:02:38

I'm Nick Bridges and you're in my ward, Baltimore.

Councillor Nikki Ind - 0:02:43

Good afternoon, I'm Councillor Nicky and I represent Tethrae Easton Ward.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:02:50

Good afternoon, my name is Patrick Coleman. I'm the Councillor for the Stratton Ward in

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:03:00

Syrensestor. Councillor Ray Brassington representing Syrensestor. Apologising for my cough I've

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:03:07

got. Thank you. I hope you survived the meeting Councillor Brassington. Can now I ask the

officers to introduce themselves.

Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:03:19

Good afternoon, Julia Gibson, Democratic Services Officer.

Legal Services - 0:03:25

Good afternoon, Mari Barnes, Legal Advisor to this committee.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:03:31

Harrison Bowley, the Head of Planning Services for the Council.

Officer - 0:03:35

Martin Perks, Principal Planning Officer.

Officer - 0:03:42

Mary Ann Garrett, Environmental Protection Officer, specifying in noise and amenities.

Officer - 0:03:50

April Painting, Environmental Protection Officer for Environmental Health and also in noise

Officer - 0:03:58

and amenities. Good afternoon, I'm Helen Cooper and I'm Senior Planning Officer. Thank you.

1 Apologies

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:04

Thank you very much. Can I ask if there are any apologies or substitutions?

2 Substitute Members

Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:04:11

Yes, we have apologies from Councillor Ian Watson and Councillor Michael van and

Councillor Julia Judd is in the vice chair for Councillor Ian Watson today.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:22

Thank you. Thank you very much Councillor Judd for jumping into the hotspot.

3 Declarations of Interest

Any declarations of interests from members?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:33

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:04:35

Councillor Caul. Thank you chair. Yes just regarding agenda number nine the Dial

House Hotel in Borkham the water. Having spoken to the legal advisor head of

planning I think it's best if I stay out of that debate just because I have a

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:57

with the with the supporter listed in the in the agenda. Thank you. Thank you

Councillor David Fowles - 0:05:03

very much for that. Councillor Fowles. Thank you Chairman. The two items in

Boughton on the water just to acknowledge that I know one of the public very well

is a good friend of mine. It's nice to see him and through the chair I'll say

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:05:22

hello but it doesn't influence my decision whatsoever. Thank you. Thank you

Councillor Brassington. Yes in relation to item 9 objectives we've got Julia and

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:05:30

David Stevenson. I know them both. I particularly David because he used to work

here but that was probably about 14 -15 years ago. I do know them. Are you happy with

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:05:44

those councillors that they may stay in the meeting.

Sorry, yes, if you're content

Legal Services - 0:05:50

that you can approach the item with an open mind.

Thank you, that's fine.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:05:56

Thank you very much.

4 Minutes

Now, can we turn to the minutes of the last council meeting?

I wasn't here, so can I ask anybody

if they've got any comments about the minutes

for the last meeting?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:06:15

Is anyone ready to propose that we accept the minutes?

Thank you, Councillor Fowles.

Councillor Brassington will second.

We'll take a vote on those minutes.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:06:42

Sorry, those minutes passed six in favour, three abstentions.

So now we move on to chairs announcements.

5 Chair's Announcements

I don't have any particular announcement, but Councillor Fowles has asked if he may

just for a minute speak on the Heritage Open Sire ancestor leaflet, which you should have

in front of you.

Councillor Fowles.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:07:06

Thank you very much, Chairman.

This is a nationalist initiative backed by the National Trust.

It had fallen into disrepair here in Sire ancestor, but delighted to say that we've

relaunched it this weekend.

You've each got a map and a leaflet and so too have our guests, members of the public.

You're welcome to attend everything. The essential thing about it is that it's free, every single item.

But I thought it would be interesting to members because it's to do with the built heritage of Sarrancestor

and their buildings there that you wouldn't get to see at any other time.

and you all have been invited to a pre -launch event,

albeit very late in the day.

I do apologise.

Some logistical issues on Friday evening at the old Kennels

at 5 .15 if you'd like to come along.

If you haven't got the invitation,

I'll make sure you get it.

And just to note that the telephone number

on the back is mine,

so I'm expecting lots of phone calls over the weekend.

All right.

Perhaps I shouldn't have said that, but anyway, it is my phone number.

Thank you very much for joining that to our attention, Councillor Foulson. I hope that

many of us will be able to support this initiative.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:08:24

Could you switch your light off, Councillor? Thank you very much. Now we move on to public

6 Public questions

questions. Are there any public questions?

7 Member questions

Schedule of Applications

And are there any members questions? Good. In that case we can move on to our schedule

of applications. The first one pertains to Broughton industrial park, Broughton on the

water. The proposal is for the erection of an Aldi food store, a cost of drive -through,

8 25/03800/FUL - Bourton Industrial Park, Bourton-on-the-Water

associated car parking and other associated works. The case officer is

Martin Perks and the ward member is Councillor John Waring. Could you

Officer - 0:09:13

update us? Thank you. Yes, thank you Chair. Just to confirm, we had a further

letter received on Friday from representatives of Tesco, so that's

attached to additional pages, pages four to six, so hopefully you've all had a chance

to look at that but I'll give you a minute just if you want to go through that and then

I'll go through the slides.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:11:20

Has everyone had enough time to look through that?

Officer - 0:11:29

I'll go through the slides just to put the site in context. The site is located on part

of an existing industrial estate located on the northern edge of the village of Borton

on Water. It's highlighted in yellow there to put it in context with the village as a

whole. Again, the application site outlined in red with the access as well onto the A429.

As you can see to the east, south east there's an existing industrial unit, employment estate.

In south west there's a 21st century housing development.

An aerial photograph again showing the site.

The areas that are shown in kind of white or brownish colour there are parts of the

approved employment estate that hasn't yet been built out.

So again that shows the extent of the existing employment estate that could be built out

as part of the 2018 permission. The application site falls within the

southwestern part of that site. Again this puts the application site in

context with the approved employment estate. As part of that there's

15 approved units. This development would resort in

two of these units not being able to be built out but the remaining 13 units

could still potentially be built out even if this permission was granted for

scheme. Again in the report we're mentioning the local plan and a

departure from the local plan. So the plan on the left shows the current

extract from the local plan. It shows in blue hash line the established

employment estate or site. Yellow is the allocated site for industrial B1 B2 B8.

The dark blue area is the site of this application. As set out in the report just to

confirm this would be a departure from the local plan because it would result in a non -class

EG B2BA use occupying an allocated site for that use.

It would also be in conflict with Policy EC2 which states that allocated employment sites

will be retained for B -class employment purposes unless there is no reasonable prospect of

site being used for employment. So clearly the developer or the applicant,

not the applicant but the current landowner of the estate has work on

their employment estate and therefore it is possible that they could build out

employment units on this site. So there is therefore a potential conflict with

EC2 as well as departure from the local plan. But as set out in the report we

consider the material considerations that outweigh the reason for that

particular policy. The drawing on the plan on the right is just the future

extract from the emerging local plan that just shows the extended employment

site area that would be included in the new local plan. Again that at the moment

carries very limited weight because we're at the regulation 19 consultation

stage it hasn't been submitted for examination but it just gives you an

indication of the extent of the employment estate going forward should

the local plan go forward but as it stands at the moment that carries very

limited weight that wouldn't supersede the weight we're currently given to the

plan as it stands at the moment. As mentioned in the report as well the

approved employment development measures about 5 .6 hectares if you remove the 1 .1

hectares of this application site from that amount you're still left with 4 .5

hectares of employment land which would be in excess of the 3 .38 hectares set out

in the local plan allocation. So even if this was permitted today or in the

future, the amount of employment land coming forward in this part of the village will still

be in excess of the local plan allocation set out in the current local plan.

In terms of the site itself, looking northwestwards across the southern part of the site towards

the A429 and looking northwards again through the site with the industrial estate on the

right. From the southwest part of the site looking across to the industrial estate. Essentially

the land to the east at the moment is primarily used for the parking of coaches and lorries.

Public right of way runs along the western part of the site between the site and the

A429. So again you get a view through existing trees, including protected oak tree, looking

back towards the site. This was taken in December so limited leaf coverage and

this one was taken in April from the A429 looking across towards the site so you

see a backdrop of existing employment units when viewed from the A429. In

addition there's an extant permission to build on the site anyway for employment

units. Housing to the south of the site again was built first part of this

century, back position from Meadow Way. And the site itself, Aldi and the northern part

of the site with the cost of drive through to the south with the car park in between.

The landscape area between the right of way and the A429 would be retained and landscaped

and new trees and landscaping introduced around the site as well. The Aldi itself, it's about

6 .2 metres high, so it's lower than the approved industrial units, which were 9 metres.

It makes a natural stone, black cladding, grey cladding.

It's similar in design to the one in Moreton in Marsh, which is like that.

So it just gives you an indication of potential appearance going forward.

The Coster again, a mixture of render, natural stone and metal cladding.

It's a relatively small building, so in the context of the employment estate next door

another development. It's considered to be acceptable for this location. In the

reports I mentioned various highway works just to clarify. On the A429 is

proposed to introduce tactile crossing across the A429 where an existing public

right -of -way crosses the Fosse Way. Also it's proposed to introduce a zebra

crossing on Meadow Way to the south of the junction with Borton Link. So to

improve pedestrian accessibility to the site from the village. And as well as

that there's also proposals to create new traffic signal junction onto the A429

as part of highway improvement works. Now this was all approved as part of

the previous application permission for the employment estate. It would have just

been phased to be later in that development but that will be brought

forward earlier now if this scheme was permitted and this

would be part and parcel of that package of works

that would accompany the development of the retail store.

Yeah, that's the last one, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:18:34

Now can I ask the public speakers to come forward?

For the parish council, we have Councillor Andy Roberts,

and for the applicant and agent,

we have Guy Wakefield and Rob Jones.

Mr. Wakefield and Mr. Jones,

you've got three minutes between you.

You're very welcome to share the slot,

but we will cut you off for three minutes.

Do you want me to tie you independently,

one and a half minutes each or three minutes?

It's all together, it's fine.

Thank you.

Councillor Roberts, are you ready?

Town/Parish Council - 0:19:25

So you have three minutes. Thank you chair. My name is Andy Roberts. I'm Vice

Chair of Broughton -on -the -Water Parish Council and I chair the Planning and

Highways Committee. Parish Council has no objection to the erection of the Aldi

supermarket but does object specifically to the drive -through nature of the Costa

Coffee site. We have concerns regarding the following points. Diminished air

quality caused by cars idling queuing to be served. Not all cars are electric and

pollution from the car park itself, tyre rubber, oil etc and the close proximity

of a wetland area. Drainage in the Koster area which may not be sufficient and

could lead to surface water flooding. The lighting and environmental impact.

Council would hope that the development complies with Cotswold National

Landscapes Dark Skies Policy and that CDC's Environmental Health Officers

objections regarding a lack of noise and lighting survey have now been

adequately addressed. Finally the council requests that a Pullams bus stop is

located nearer to the supermarket entrance and not on Medaway which is a

long way for shoppers to walk and may discourage some people from using public

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:20:42

transport to shop. Thank you. Thank you very much. Now can I ask Mr. Wakefield and

Mr. Jones. Good afternoon members thank you for the opportunity to speak to you.

Applicant/Agent - 0:20:55

Your officers and the applicant have worked together to agree a position

where the officer feels that they can recommend approval. That process has

involved a number of changes made throughout the process to respond to

comments made by various parties. There are now no objections from any of the

Statutory Consultees. Regarding the impact on the site's allocation for

employment use, there are still significant opportunities for employment

development on the land -granted reserve matters approval in 2019, with only two

of the now remaining 11 units being built out. As the officer notes in his

report and update today, the local plan requirement is less than that actually

granted planning permission back in 2018. This ultimately reduces the extent to

which one could argue that the loss of traditional employment land from the permitted and the

allocated site will have significant implication on the district's ability to meet its traditional

employment needs in the local plan period. Indeed, the scheme will on average generate

more jobs than the existing industrial park. The supermarket will claw back trade and leaked

expenditure from stores beyond its catchment area, thus also reducing the distance that

people are currently travelling for their food shopping needs.

Ultimately, we support the officers' updated assessment of policy and whilst there is acknowledged

conflict with the local plan, there are other material considerations, namely the scheme's

benefits, which we believe are considered to outweigh the conflict.

Good afternoon members, I'm Rob Jones from Aldi.

This scheme will deliver substantial economic benefits representing an investment of more

than £4 million into the local economy.

It will create up to 60 high quality jobs, recruited locally wherever possible, with

industry -leading rates of pay above the national living wage.

But this is more about just employment.

At a time when household budgets are stretched, this store will give families access to high

quality food at genuinely affordable prices.

The proposal would tackle the postcode penalty.

Families in over 200 UK towns are paying up to £2 ,437 more per year on their grocery

shopping simply because they lack access to a discount supermarket. The community

response to the proposals have been overwhelming. 1 ,100 residents responded

with more than 91 % expressing support for the development. Highway's

considerations have been carefully assessed. The proposal includes a new

signalised junction at the Fosse Way and Meadoway Junction alongside access

arrangements designed to safely accommodate customers, staff

and deliveries. ARDI is also committed to supporting local communities beyond

simply providing a place to shop. Through initiatives such as our partnership with

neighbourly, we work with food banks, charities and community organisations to

ensure surplus food reaches those who need it most. We are confident that this

scheme will provide lasting benefits for local residents. We therefore respectfully

ask members to support the application and enable this investment to come

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:23:53

forward. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. That was perfect timing.

you hit the three minutes exactly can I invite you to return to your seats thank

you very much and also mr. Roberts thank you Councillor Roberts I don't see

Councillor wearing in the chamber has he sent a report okay I see the wood

member isn't here however we did have a site inspection briefing which we

attended which was very helpful can I ask members who attended the briefing to

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:24:31

give their opinion. Councillor Judd. Thank you chair. Yes it was a very open, easy to

read site. Access from the main road is easy. It was busy. I mean there was a lot of traffic

coming off the main road and going on into the industrial estate because I believe it

it leads to other things on the other side of it and I don't think I've got

much more to add really other than the fact that I noticed that important in

the water needs a supermarket you know a normal supermarket.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:25:07

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:25:11

Councillor Evans. Thank you chair. To echo Councillor Judd's points yes very

site easy access from the main road also to echo her comment that Broughton on

the water absolutely needs a supermarket that has affordable prices. My observation

on the site visit though was that opposite where the proposed entrance is

there were lots of coaches parked which I assume was tourists. I mean bearing in mind

it was a quiet day in early September and it was raining it was busy and my

would be vehicular access out of that supermarket entrance onto the onto the

side road but other than that the observation is that that's the only

Councillor David Fowles - 0:25:59

observation I really have on it. Councillor Fowls. I concur with what's

already been said would be interested in comment that's been made about the

location of the pedestrian crossing because I remember Martin pointed it out

at the meeting but could you just refresh our memories as to where it is

is there a comment made that it was too far down the road in terms of public

public transport access? We'll cover that when we get to the questions. In terms of the site I thought it's an ideal site for development.

Take on board the comments about about Costa but we can talk about that later

and yeah as has been said it appears with the figures that just been quoted

by one of the speakers yeah 91 % 1100 people wanting this discount store

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:26:48

sounds like a great opportunity. Thank you.

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:26:54

Councillor Bridges. Yeah I had a lovely opportunity to walk around went to Co -op

and did some of the cafes as well. I didn't really have any strong

objections to this. It's I also went past Pullham's coaches I think you

realise that there's a coach station there as well. I didn't see any

opposite any opposition to do with pooling of water. I think we often

comment on that at this place but basically it was a one of the most

straightforward ones I've seen. Thank you Councillor Bridges.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:27:30

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:27:33

Councillor Coleman. Nothing further to add, Chair. I don't think any of the other

Councillors were here apart from myself. Yes, it's not a very exciting patch of

land is it, I think, and it's very well related to the industrial site in

the background, so in terms of the Cotswold National Landscape it's not

going to cause a problem I feel. It is well, although it is an out -of -town

location, it is really quite well related to the housing estate we saw on the

other side of Medaway, so I think that was something that would speak in its

favour, but obviously there are further issues that we're going to discuss now

when we come to our questions.

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:28:26

My first question would be obviously this is a change of use from employment to retailing,

sort of, but there is no problem in getting additional land elsewhere along that stretch

for employment usage if someone contacts us?

Officer - 0:28:45

I think what we have to look at is there is an allocation for a set amount of land and

that's set out in the local plan and therefore that should be built for

employment before you consider start releasing other land in lieu of this one.

I think you should look on the focus is there a justification, our material

considerations to justify losing this land before you then start saying it can

be built elsewhere. So in this instance for the reasons set out in the report we

consider there are strong material considerations in terms of providing

employment, the fallback position that it could potentially go to a retail unit if

it was built out and occupied as an office under permitted development rights.

And also, sorry, my other one, lost my train of thought now.

The extant permission as well, which would oversupply the allocation anyway.

So yes, I mean, what you should focus on is there are material considerations for allowing

the loss of the employment land on this site for this particular use.

So that should be your focus rather than on presumption that some other land may come forth elsewhere

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:29:55

Thank you

councillor call

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:30:01

Thank you, just just for clarification just on looking at that whereabouts is the this new bus stop

going to be

Potentially located so I understand there was a bus stop on Medaway previously

Officer - 0:30:19

There was a bus stop in that way.

There were certain problems arising from it, yeah,

and how it's been used, so it was taken away.

At the moment, it's one of the things that have been discussed

with highways and the applicants and people like Pullums in terms

of deciding where the best location would be.

So it hasn't been finalised yet, but ultimately, that's something

that could be done through Highway Works or part of,

when highways come back, they will set out where they'd

like it to be and where it should be,

and we could condition it to that effect.

So that's something that could be dealt with.

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:30:51

once we know the final highway comments if they raise no objection. Would be

positioned to service the Aldi if it is approved? It would be positioned in the

Officer - 0:31:01

best practical location to serve the development and the surrounding area as

well so it wouldn't just necessarily be with Aldi it would for the employment of

state as well and what works best with the Pullams bus route as well so there's

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:31:14

a few things that need to be looked at there. Just regarding 10 .64 in the

report, I believe it isn't actually accurate. There was an existing co -op

store in Morton and Marsh before Aldi moved in there. It just moved location

Officer - 0:31:33

from the centre of town to the old Budgens building. Yeah, it was a very small

one it was a it was like the Tesco kite so it wasn't equivalent to the co -op

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:31:47

you have now. Thank you. Councillor Inte. Thank you chair and just a quick

question from reading through the papers and hearing what the parish council have

had to say. It appears to me that the Aldi store isn't in question what's in

question is the Costa coffee drive -through is there is it is it one

one application or could it be separated out because I it seems to me that it's

Officer - 0:32:24

the Costa coffee that's causing the problem and not the supermarket sorry

the applicants been quite clear that he comes as a package and want them to be

considered together so you'd have to look at them as a package and make a

based on both of them rather than one or the other. Thank you.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:32:40

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:32:42

Councillor Breslington. Thank you Chair. In relation to lighting there is a

condition restricting lighting at night time but there isn't a condition

controlling the extent and the type of lighting. Could you tell me where

Where that is covered, please.

Officer - 0:33:02

The applicants provided a lighting strategy with their application, which sets out various

lighting on the site, mainly bollards.

So that's one of the approved drawings, so you have to do it in accordance with that plan.

If they wanted to do extra lighting over and above that in the future, it potentially going

to need planning permission in its own right, because it would be development.

So there are also street lights along both Borton Link and Meadow Way on two sides of the application site.

So there is already quite a lot of illumination along that part of the highway around the site.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:33:36

Okay, thank you.

In relation to drainage, opposite the site, there's the suds site for the Bloor homes.

Will any surface water from this development go into that SUDs?

Officer - 0:33:53

No, my understanding is that the water at the moment flows west to east, so any water

from here goes into the holding tanks on the site and then houses it eastwards. The water

from that site to the west comes into this site rather than vice versa, so it shouldn't

to the east rather than to the west or south.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:34:21

Thank you. In relation to the proposed traffic lights on the 429, what is the trigger level

for putting them in?

Officer - 0:34:31

Again that's going to be a matter for highways to decide through the conditions they put

forward. At the moment the final detailed design of the traffic lights has been resolved

with highways and highway consultants, then there would be a condition or

obligations to cover their installation within a set time period. So that would

be covered as part of this. But it's anticipated it would be put in place in

advance of say the Aldi coming into operation, unless highways are satisfied

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:35:03

an alternative time frame can be agreed. Thank you. Final question, Chair. In

relation to the operating hours for Costa, it's stated that they'll start at

6 .30am. Night time is defined in British Standard as 11pm to 7am. So this is a night time opening.

Is that a suitable proposal to have it opening during the night?

Officer - 0:35:27

I think technical might be night time but I think most people would call that a morning

but I know what you mean. That's the opening hours the applicant has put forward. If we're

to agree to it we have to come up with reasons to say why that's unacceptable and there is

nothing to indicate from the information we've received that that opening hours would be

problematic to the local area. Bearing in mind you have next to an industrial estate coach

station essentially where pull -ups operate and send out all the busses from, next to the

A429, so there is already a degree of movement and activity in that area already, so we don't

that would necessarily having something like a drive -through coffee would cause a problem

in terms of noise and disturbance at that time of the morning given the existing context.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:36:16

I accept that we've got no grounds to require that, but have we suggested that as a possibility

to cost a coffee that they open at 7 instead of 6 .30?

Officer - 0:36:28

I haven't specifically because it's not been raised as an issue at any time during the

of the application.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:36:35

Councillor Fowls.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:36:40

Thank you, Chairman. I have got a few questions. First question, did you say that the ward

member has written to us? No, because I thought the ward member said at the meeting that,

My questions are as follows.

The first, on site, Martin commented on, I think the words leakage from the town centre in terms of retail.

Could you just refresh our memories about that? Because you said you had a view on that.

It's question number one. Obviously business is going to come from the town centre to this new site.

Officer - 0:37:23

Yeah, could you turn the microphone? It's easy if I answer it.

Yes, I mean when we're considering this application, one of the key issues is that the development shouldn't cause harm to the vitality and viability of the key centre,

which is this area around the river in the middle of, born under water.

So what we don't want is, say, this opening and then draws trade away from the village centre to a degree that would then cause businesses or whatever to close in the village centre.

The nature of the village centre is one whereby it's heavily reliant on tourism and it's unlikely

therefore that the expenditure is going to be significantly directed from the village

centre to this store that would cause significant harm to that vitality and viability.

So at the moment what's happening with the village as a whole is that people who do reside

in the village, because of the limited shops and offer in the village centre and then the

co -op, that's their only options. They do tend therefore to leave to go to other

locations like Sire and Cessna or Tesco in Stowe or other locations to do their

main retail shopping and that's called leakage. There's expenditure leaking from

the village to go to these other locations and that's a consideration

because if you can draw back, have this unit and it can draw back some of that

leakage to the village then clearly more will be spent in the village and it

will be beneficial. So, but as it stands the priority is to ensure it doesn't have

an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the village centre, having

gone to all the reports that have been written in its current context and it's

a very relatively healthy centre, there's no real vacant units, we're satisfied

that this proposal can do that and accord with the relevant policies in

terms of protecting town centres while also clawing back some of the retail

leakage that currently goes to other other settlements in the district.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:39:17

The second question is in relation to the concern about Costa and the fact that because

it's a drive -through, people won't obviously be necessarily drinking their coffee or whatever

on site and will be travelling either into the town or down the fast way. A lot of these

take away operations provide some form of litter pick as part of their community surface

to the community. Is there any discussion that's taken place? I mean, obviously, if

it's on the Fosse Way, it's a very busy road. It's not like a McDonald's in Sirencester,

for example. But I don't know. Has there been any discussion with them about trying to manage

the litter problem?

Officer - 0:40:01

Yeah, I mean it's one of the society issues I think we have. I don't know how much planning

can really control it. I mean, as it stands, yes, there's a condition requiring litter

bins so that will be within the site, so that should help to control it within the site.

In terms of litter bin deposited on the Fosse Way, if it's on the highway, we couldn't ask

the applicant to do it because it would be covered under the Highway Act and highways

would have to do it. It's something we can raise with Gloucester County Council

Highways to see if it's part of their response. They want some sort of scheme

that deals with that and the interest of highway safety for example, but at the

Councillor David Fowles - 0:40:39

moment no there isn't anything intended to cover that issue. I can't remember how

many council meetings I've brought this question up with the portfolio holder or

various portfolio holders that over recent years we've removed waste bins

from the Fosse Way and the laybys there and so that results in people just

throwing things into the laybys and I've been brushed off with an insufficient

answer but this is potentially just going to exacerbate that and that's a

comment but I just make my comment. Just two other questions if I may

Chairman. The first is if you look at Meadow Way which I think you commented

on there's all there's that development across the road looking at the plan the

landscaping and I think you said on site that it's existing landscaping. There's no plan to put any more trees in. Is there anything being

thought about in terms of that top end of the site or the southern end of the site looking at where Meadow Way is to try

and screen it from

the residents across the road? Is that just, is that,

is that just open space there?

Is there any hedging or anything? I can't see it in the plan. At the moment

It's open partly one reason is for visibility displays the other reason is that the drainage channel is being relocated around the southern part of the site

So that's going to hamper what landscaping you can put in that area as well

So that's why it's it is relatively open there because it's quite limited

Taking Councillor Brassington's point who knows far more about light pollution than I do

So it would be an open site looking out across all residents rather looking across the site. We'll we'll see it

We can't screen it in any way. Yeah

Not to any significant degree. I mean there are already street lights along that section of road, so there's already illumination there anyway.

And the traffic from headlights. So you will see part of the Costa, but there is landscaping going in around, but it is limited what you can do in that part of the site because of the drainage and the sight line.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:42:39

Okay, and just two more questions. Someone's already made the comment that coaches, I think it was Councillor Evans, made the comment that coaches park along the access road.

What's the current situation on coach parking in Borton? I know it's an

ongoing problem and I've had a separate meeting with

John, Councillor Waring, about coaches. At the moment coaches do park there, don't we?

Is there anything we can do to prevent that or move them along because they do

get in the way, I would imagine? Ultimately again if it's on the highway

Officer - 0:43:12

that's covered by the County Council highways in terms of traffic regulation

orders. My understanding is I think there's been trials in terms of parking

some coach operators park along there. There's a trial that's with Gloucester

County Council so I don't know how that's going or what the future is there.

Clearly there is a intended to be a longer term strategy for Borton in terms of

coach parking and where they're going to go but at the moment this site is

sufficient in parking and won't require parking on that road. The access is

suitable for the development and ultimately it would be a matter for

highways to resolve if there are parking problems along there at the moment in terms of whether

they need to introduce double yellow lines or whatever. That's all I can add really on

that.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:44:00

Last question, I mean, I think someone commented on a pedestrian crossing or some form of access

across that road. I can't see it on the map. Is there one? And if so, where is it? On the

site plan, on page whatever.

It's over there.

Oh, it's over there. Okay.

It is on your attachments. It's on the screen again now. On the right, it's probably not clear.

Broughton Link is the road going off to the right. The application site is to the north of that,

and then to the south of that is where the Zebra Crossing would go.

So it would be on Meadow Way just before you get to Broughton Link.

And you're content that that's the right location for you?

Well, that's the location that highways think is acceptable.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Based on road safety orders.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:44:44

Thank you Martin. Thank you for a good briefing on site by the way.

Councillor Coleman.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:44:49

Thank you Chair. The applicants in their presentation referred to 1100 supporters.

We've listed 158. Can you account for the difference in those numbers?

Officer - 0:45:08

The report just covers the amount that we've received as a council.

The applicant may have received comments in relation to a public exhibition they did

or a community consultation they did.

I can't speak for that.

But we've received around 158 letters of support.

So that's what we received in response to the planning application.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:45:27

Next, next chair, I'd like to ask about the supplementary additional pages that we received

today and from the planning practise on behalf of Tesco Stores Limited.

I didn't quite get to the end during our reading time, but I think it's fair to say that there

cases that we have given four other material considerations to outweigh or justify a departure

from two important local plan policies, but in their analysis those four have little if

any weight, no weight, negative weight and no weight. I feel, Chair, that before we get

too much further into proper questions, I mean into discussion and further questions,

It might be helpful if our officers could give a response to this late objection on

behalf of Tesco's.

Officer - 0:46:27

Yeah.

I mean, the first one seems to be that concerns relate to the fact that we're giving weight

to the creation of this would generate employment and that's a reason to support this scheme

contrary to the development plan.

Yes, it is a departure and this isn't technically an employment use class type of development,

but it will generate employment. The site, for example, isn't going to go to housing

and we'd lose employment going forward. It is going to another employment generating

use and we do think that's a reasonable consideration and a relevant consideration when looking

at this going forward in that the development will still contribute to the rural economy

and local employment. So we do think that carries weight and we do think it's a consideration

in this instance that is worthy of giving the weight we have to it.

I think the next one about the use classes order, they've indicated that normally industrial

states would have a condition restricting the use.

That's not the case here.

There is no condition limiting the use on that employment estate to B1, B2, B8.

So in effect the applicant could essentially build out an industrial unit, use it for a

short period for offices or whatever, and then change it to a retail development without

need for planning permission. So that is a fallback position that could be, again, a

consideration that we have to take into account. The government changed the rules in 2020 to

allow offices to go to retail units, for example, without need for planning permission.

The problem, again, I think what they're trying to say further is about we shouldn't take

into account the fact that they're providing additional employment land over above the

site allocation. But again, I think that is a consideration because clearly this site,

if you minus the 1 .1 hectares of this site would still give you 4 .5 hectares of employment land,

which is in excess of the allocated 3 .38.

So even if this is built out, notwithstanding that we are losing part of the allocated employment site,

we are still gaining in excess of the amount of land allocated in the local plan for employment

as a result of the extent of permission.

So also the latest employment land statistics produced earlier in the year

said the council was meeting its requirements in terms of employment land

supply for this local plan period. So again there isn't a deficit showing in

our employment land deliverability at the current time. So again we consider

that on balance there's consideration there that potentially supports the use

of this site in this instance and it wouldn't prejudice the delivery of the

Council's requirement to meet its employment land supply needs.

And the final one is about the local plan.

Again, as I set out, the local plan is going to allocate,

take into account the approved employment site.

Going forward at the moment, however,

it's still at Regulation 19 consultation stage and carries very limited weight.

The chance that the local plan may be subject to further changes before it gets

submitted for examination.

and we can't really give a particular weight to that at the moment that would outweigh

what we believe to be the recommendations we've made previously in relation to the site

and the considerations that we've set out.

So we do think the considerations are reasonable.

They are of a degree of weight that can justify departure in this instance.

And ultimately, it's a matter of individuals will weigh them up accordingly, probably give

them different weight according on their approach to this scheme.

but from an officer point of view we are satisfied

that the material considerations are there to justify departure

in this instance and a departure also from policy EC2.

So hopefully that explains it if I didn't ramble on too much.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:50:26

Thank you very much.

And perhaps for one last one, there was a reference in here

to the number of car parking spaces to be provided.

And I wondered if without too much effort we could identify how that total

compares to the number of car parking spaces supplied by Aldi at their

Officer - 0:50:52

Morton and Marsh development or the Sire ancestor one if you prefer. I think I've

covered that in a report. I think it's 127 and that includes the coster. I

without the cost of it.

Thank you, Councillor Judd.

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:51:14

Thank you, Chair.

As I mentioned in my comments about the site visit,

what I noticed was on a reasonably quiet morning really,

sort of midweek morning,

there was quite a lot of traffic coming down that road.

And I can see that if you're coming out

onto the T junction from the industrial estate

to turn right, you could either end up waiting

for a very long time or causing issues by pulling over,

waiting for the traffic coming from the Saran Sestar

direction to find a gap.

And I know that highways has said something

about the traffic lights going in after 139 cars

or something an hour.

but is there anything we can do to encourage the traffic lights? I mean I'm

just thinking of a safety point of view. Is there anything we can do to

Officer - 0:52:18

strengthen that commitment or hasten it? As I kind of stated already,

that matter is still being assessed by Blosh Council highways. They're

okay in principle with the traffic lights. There's road safety audits going

on in terms of how they're going to function and work and operate and their design. Once

that's known, then highways will come back with various conditions and agreements that

will be set out when they want those to be put in and what period. Now, it may well be

that's dealt with through under the Highways Act rather than planning, and then the applicant

has to go to highways and do it through those regulations, but accord with drawings that

they've provided to us. So, ultimately, we're going to wait and see what highways say, and

they will set out the time period for the implementation of that. But equally, after

this meeting, I will refer any comments like that to highways just to get clarification

that clearly as members, you would like to ensure that they're put in as soon as possible.

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:53:17

I think that would be much appreciated, Martin. Thank you. My other question is, is it inappropriate

If this committee moves to support your recommendation,

is it inappropriate once clients are actually here

to ask them to ask their marketing department

to actually put something in place

to do anything they possibly can

to deter litter waste from the cost of coffee?

We can't separate the two applications.

It's an ongoing thing.

and there are ways to mitigate that. Is there anything we can do to

Officer - 0:54:00

support the application? Well the applicant will have heard you and it's

something from a PR point of view we can I can discuss with them as well and

whether there's something we can do there. I'll also raise it with highways

just in case there's an issue there in terms of additional litter being placed

on the public highway which may be a concern for highways anyway so I can

raise that again with highways just to say is it something they're considering

and would they want something as part of that. I think one of the problems in why

we seem probably seen more litter in recent years is because increasingly

cutbacks at County Council you don't get the people clearing the roads like they

used to ten years ago so there's probably less litter picking than there

was but it's something again we can raise with highways in terms of that

going forward.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:54:42

Councillor Evans.

Thank you, Chair.

A number of questions that I had

have already been dealt with by colleagues, thankfully.

Couple remaining.

Do we have any indication of the traffic movements

in and out of a site with or without the cost at present?

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:55:05

Or do we have any indication of the traffic movements

full stop on an hourly basis during the day?

Officer - 0:55:15

It's been done in a combined manner, but in the traffic statement or the traffic section

of the report, it's in there in terms of what the numbers are.

It only gives peak AM, peak PM periods.

I think it was about 270 in the peak PM, which is different on a Saturday.

It's like mid -morning and about 170 in the morning, which sounds a lot, but then if you

that into an hour that's about three or four cars a minute so it's not significant amount in that

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:55:46

context given the traffic on the a429 anyway thank you i suspected it was the case that we didn't

have the breakdown with or without the coster um my other question related to the pedestrian

crossing on the 429 i i don't i assume a tactile is a tactile crossing is it lighted is it it

Officer - 0:56:06

Probably sounds grander than it is. It's just going to be a couple of drop curbs with a bit of textured...

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:56:13

There's no lines or markings or anything.

Okay, but without that...

With that in place, but without the traffic lights signalised at the junction, and the increased traffic movement potentially,

there is no way to cross that road without the traffic being stopped.

Officer - 0:56:34

you basically taking a chance is that correct? The reason that tactile crossing

was brought in is because there's a public right -of -way that goes to lower

slaughter and it's used by people to walk so actually it was considered

reasonable the public right -of -way officer requested it if we could just

improve that accessibility feature for people because people are already going

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:56:59

that way the potential there is potential to yeah so helps that. Thank

you. Councillor Bridges did you have another question? Okay Councillor Fowles

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:57:09

mentioned McDonald's here in Syrinsister. I live just around the back from it and

a couple of my neighbours regularly pick up whole bags worth of discarded cups

and packaging that goes with McDonald's. It's a great frustration. We also live

very close to the churn and obviously anything that gets into the churn is a

lot harder to pick up. So my questions, it has to be a question, is how far is this

site from the nearest bit of water? And my second question would be can we put

any kind of condition on this that they do the picking up themselves or that we

able to have some sort of penalty clause for every bit of litter that has to be picked

up by a local resident.

Officer - 0:58:04

Well, the River Windrush is about, goes through the centre of Bournes, so it's about a kilometre

to the south, and then there's the River Rye to the north.

So the River Windrush goes through the centre of the village, and it's about a kilometre

or more away.

And then there's the River I to the north, which goes through a few hundred metres to the north.

So there's nothing going to philtre out to those river watercourses from this development.

It's how do you identify waste from this Costa, other than a Costa coffee cup, that is litter from Costa, compared to anybody else.

So I don't know how that would work.

But no. And we can't have the applicant walking along the highway picking things up. It wouldn't

be safe along the 429. So we couldn't require them to do that. So again, that comes down

to highways. If they do the litter collecting along the 429, so that would be a matter for

them again in terms of where they want a contribution to pay for that. But again, that's something

I can raise with them in terms of going forward.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:59:14

Councillor Nikki Ind - 0:59:16

Chancellor End. Just one quick one while we're talking about litter. I was

watching something in the last few days about exactly this issue with fly

tipping of specifically fast food and coffee cups and they were talking about

having being able to print on the labels phone numbers or some sort of

identifying markers, card numbers, or you know, part of card number, so that they could, so it could be traced.

I suspect that the litter picking team wouldn't have time to then look at it, I mean, from a fly tip point of view.

But it is incredibly frustrating. I find it as well in my ward where, you know, people throw them out the car windows.

But again, I don't, I don't suppose we can

condition that sort of, as things become more technical, you know, technology improves,

Is there a way for us to ask the applicant to have some sort of identifying way so that should we have a situation

people could be picked up on it? Hopefully it would stop them anyway.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:00:15

I think we're probably venturing into

It's a bit too hypothetical. It's probably a bit too unreasonable from a planning point of view

and probably going beyond what we can reasonably control from a planning perspective.

I think as Martin's already said the litter collection side of things we can discuss with GCC highways to understand

what kind of a contribution they might want. I think anything beyond that, getting into

the realms of any condition is going to be very challenging, if possible at all, to enforce

from a planning perspective, but there may be other routes by which we can look into

that.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:00:44

Can I just ask a couple of small things? Just to clarify, if we are minded to put this in

And you're asking us to give delegated authority to deal with the biodiversity net gain problems,

particularly around great crested newts, and also the highways issues around the traffic

lights and the crossing.

Is that correct?

Officer - 1:01:15

Yes, and any other requirements they may have, like...

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:01:20

Just for clarity, we were talking about the pedestrian crossing.

I would be slightly reluctant to cross the A429 at any point.

I'm just wondering if there's going to be a pedestrian element to the traffic

lights. Is that being considered that people could, that there would be a

Officer - 1:01:37

pedestrian crossing at the traffic lights? They would normally be designed

to cater for pedestrians and cyclists. I don't know off the top of my head

whether there's a pavement on the western side of the Fosse Way in that location so

it wouldn't be serve any purpose. That's why people go up the right -of -way and up

the eastern side of the Fosse Way and cross at this point. Yeah. If you are

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:01:57

walking to Lowis Law Centre. It would be quite nice if there was a pavement on the

other side but I don't suppose we can include that. Okay now if there are no

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:02:07

more questions we're going to move on to the debate and comments. Thanks.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:02:11

Councillor Coleman. Chair, I would like to indicate my wish to propose to accept

the officers recommendations. I want to speak briefly on this. As a much less experienced

Cotswold Councillor, I was present in this room when the Aldi in Moreton in Marsh was

up for permission. And in my ignorance, I thought, oh, nobody in Moreton is going to

want an Aldi because it's North Cotswold. It's a bit, you know, weight -trosy up there,

isn't it? It shows you how much I didn't know the area. Because it's one of the most, it's

one of the times that stuck in my memory, the parish, town council rather, the town

council spokesperson made a very clear and very well substantiated and statistically

backed case for why that sort of storm is such an important asset to add to the town

of Morton. Now whilst Morton on the water is not a town but a village, they're not that

different in population and they're also not that different in incomes for people who aren't

involved in tourism and indeed for those who are. So I think it's been quite a credit to

this council overall to see the provision of employment land in this location, why there

is a distinction between jobs provided at Aldi and other times of jobs that aren't provided

in shops. I have no idea. But it seems to me that this is something that is both popular

and acceptable, does provide some employment, does provide some choice and is something

that has been carefully presented and provided that we're not subject to some last, well

from competing supermarket owners, I think this is something we can look forward to.

Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:04:21

I'd like to speak on this application but also I would like to second Councillor Coleman if he is going to be proposing this for approval.

I don't live in Borton in the Walshes, you know, I represent Morton in Marsh where we

benefit from having an Aldi which provides affordable food for the local residents and

I think your point about the local demographic, there is real similarities there.

I work in Borton sometimes, I have a small local business there and I know the people

that work for me, not all of them drive cars, not all of them can drive to Aldi in Morton

or to Tesco in Stowe, they have to get the bus.

So I think local jobs investment is really important.

The numbers where they're talking about 40 in Aldi

and 20 in Costa would benefit the local community greatly.

I also think this scheme, including all the highways work,

will also benefit the village as well.

So I think fundamentally this gives local residents

greater choice for the village, as you point out,

here's a village, not a town,

and affordable food shopping for bought residents,

which is why I will absolutely support the Councillor Colman's recommendation. Secondly, his proposal.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:05:34

To make sure members of the considerations, obviously this has been submitted by Aldi and

it's got Aldi in the description of development so it's completely understandable we're referring

to Aldi. It is worth bearing in mind that there is no conditional restriction limiting this solely to

an Aldi. It could be an alternative supermarket. Obviously, you know, I completely understand why

it's being mentioned but just to make sure members aren't too narrowed in their views that they're

permitting anality obviously we're permitting a supermarket that is proposed by and currently

you know proposed to be occupied by ality but just to make sure we're not too narrow on that

Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:06:04

for you i'm not saying you are but just to no no absolutely i mean i'm looking at the what we

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:06:09

the application we have in front of us right thank you are there any other comments sorry

Councillor Paul Evans - 1:06:15

oh sorry i'm so sorry councillor evans thank you chair um i like councillors coleman and court

I'm delighted to see a supermarket coming to Borton,

something for the benefit of residents.

Whether it is an Aldi or not,

it seems a much needed asset in that area.

And I would therefore support it.

I'm not entirely sure that residents of Borton

need a drive -through Costa coffee,

but I understand that it is part of the application

and therefore difficult to turn it down on those grounds

would be to turn down a supermarket much needed for the village of Borton. I am

concerned about the highways elements. I am particularly concerned about the

fact that it is open parking opposite where the entrance is proposed to be and

that inevitably means coaches. I think with three a minute traffic trying to

come in and out of there that is a consideration that I would like to

encourage highways to do something about in terms of potentially double yellow

lining that entire stretch. I would also to support council the judge points like

to see that lights go in as soon as practically possible because that I

think the increase in traffic will cause problem. The other thing I observed was

that the pedestrian crossing across Meadoway was actually south of Borton

So I do question the utility of using that pedestrian crossing when actually you've then got to get across Bournton link anyway

so again, I would encourage highways to

to review that position of that pedestrian crossing to make it more amenable to

Residents as they go to the supermarket or consider putting one across Bournton link as well

To make it an easier pedestrian journey

other than that I

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:08:15

support the application. Thank you Councillor Evans. Councillor Judd. Thank

Councillor Julia Judd - 1:08:21

you chair. One of the things we didn't talk about really is that there is when

we were there on the site visit there was a hot potato coffee trailer and I

I would suggest to those who have concerns about the the coffee drive

through element that this is something's going to crop up there anyway. It's

obviously a need already, a need for coffee,

and let alone from the industrial estate,

but when people start shopping.

So I would again, I would request the applicants,

whilst I've got your ear,

it means I don't have to write to the CEO,

please could you do everything in your power

to work with the community to not have your cups

on the highways or around the industrial estate.

and I'm sure there will be litter picks that you can work with them,

let alone your marketing people which were absolutely brilliant and can say

please recycle your mugs. And apart from that, thank you very much for listening to me.

Thank you, Councillor Fowles.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:09:28

I've listened to everything everybody's saying.

And obviously this is a much needed

Councillor David Fowles - 1:09:41

out for the residents of Borton, most of them will turn left out of that junction and won't have to

go across the fast way if it is designed to provide for the residents of Borton village. As for

the coffee cups and so on, I know that area very well. I had a client there and had a business

there. On the estate there is another coffee place around the corner in addition to the hot

potato place, okay?

I'm really uncomfortable about the part of this application

that relates to Costa Coffee because the reality is that

people will, it's human nature, they will take their coffee

away, that's why it's a drive -through, and they will go

up and down the fast way, and there is nowhere for them to put

their coffee cups just to leave them in the car, fine.

And human nature as such is that they will lob them out

of the window.

Not everybody, but that's what will happen, okay?

So I'm sure that Costa, like McDonald's, will do everything they can to make sure that the industrial estate is kept clean and tidy and cups etc. etc.

But the reality is that there are going to be a lot of cups on the FOS way.

And as Martin said, that's incredibly dangerous. You can't have people going up and down that.

We do have a situation, looking at the current administration, where they've removed all the bins from the nearest laybys.

And so this is a potential litter disaster waiting to happen.

So because the two are linked, I haven't got any problem whatsoever with Aldi.

None whatsoever.

I think it's great.

But I have a real problem with the Costa coffee drive -through because I don't see it's going

to serve the needs of the residents of Borton Village in the same way.

There's plenty of places where they can have coffee, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

So I've got a real dilemma on my hands because we can't separate the two, can we, Martin?

The two retail outlets are there.

They may change, as you quite rightly say, but I can't hand on heart support a Costa Coffee going there.

And I'm reading on page 28, 8 .2, for Costa Coffee is owned by Coca -Cola,

which has a poor ethical track record and American style.

That's not a comment on the current ownership here,

But it is we're going to have plastic cups or cardboard cups up and down the Fosse Way and we will regret that

I'm sure maybe Costas could pay for some bins to be reinstated and that's not a facetious comment

but a real problem there is it is that

it is a

It is one of the most important roads in the Cotswolds the Fosse Way and it's an entrance to some beautiful towns

And we are about to potentially

give permission to residents and people to chuck their coffee cups out of

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:12:27

windows and I'm really uncomfortable with that so I'll probably abstain.

I don't think we're licencing people to throw litter out of the windows. I think

Councillor Nick Bridges - 1:12:40

that would be very strange things to say but um Councillor Bridges. I'm just going

quite a good suggestion for for Aussie to pay for additional litter bins and to

pay for the collection which is done by the District Council at the moment. So

great idea. One thing that hasn't been mentioned at all and it was mentioned

what so it was mentioned by the town council is the potential for the car

park to flood. We have a flooding issue here with Waitrose in town and the back

Tesco's please just listen to that and make sure that when the car parks are

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:13:20

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:13:24

built the the suds are adequate thank you very much councillor Coleman yeah

councillor Fowles is a little younger than I am quite a bit younger I suspect

but I could well it's a fair point because I can remember in my youth that

litter bins started and waste bin started to disappear from laybys in the

There are very few left if you count laybys and see how many have got bins.

There's a very good reason for this.

It's a bit similar to why we don't allow, as a rule, without payment, commercial people

getting rid of rubbish to come to our tips, only domestic.

But in a layby, we've got nobody there to send them away.

And so what happens if you put a waste bin in a layby is it's a magnet for all kinds

of waste that shouldn't be tipped there in the first place.

That's my understanding of the reason, not just on cost basis,

why the message, take your litter home, is now obeyed by far more people than it used to be.

Admittedly, part of this is due to the decline in smoking,

which was one of the things you couldn't really put in a litter bin,

but it still provides particularly noxious rubbish.

So I'll do a little bit of looking into this to see whether my memory is correct,

But I believe that David's great campaign for little bins in lay buys may actually be

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:14:44

misconceived

Thank you very much. I think we're going to go down this little rabbit hole. We've been there. I've been named

20 seconds councillor files, we're not going to go on it

Councillor David Fowles - 1:14:56

No, but I just would like to point out that maybe because I'm younger I travel more

But if you go to Wiltshire and you go to West Oxfordshire

They have bins in their laybys, okay?

It is unique to the Cotswolds, I have to say.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:15:10

This is for a discussion at another time and not here yet.

But maybe I'm sure our colleagues from Aldi and Costa

are listening to our concerns.

And I know that many supermarkets in the area do

their level best to contribute to their local communities in so

many different ways.

And maybe if our colleagues from Aldi and Costa know that litter is of a particular concern for this council and for Broughton on the water,

they will make it a priority to do what they can to deal with that problem.

Can I see you nodding about that? Thank you so much. Good.

So I think we now have a proposal on the table to accept the officer's recommendation proposed by Councillor Coleman and seconded by Councillor Caul.

I just want you to note that the recommendation says,

permit subject to completion of a section 106

legal agreement covering the delivery

of biodiversity net gain,

issuing of a great Crested New District licence

by nature space, no objection from the biodiversity officer

together with associated conditions

and no objection from Gloucestershire County

Council Highways together with associated conditions

and obligations.

So we're agreeing to permit this application

while allowing our offices to deal under delegated powers

with those things that are not yet resolved.

Is that clear?

Do you all know what you're voting for?

Okay, in that case, we'll proceed to the vote.

Okay, so we have eight in favour of accepting the opposite

recommendation to permit and one abstention.

So that application is approved.

Thank you very much.

You might like to just have a little stretch before we move

on to the next application.

Thank you.

We are not having a break now. We are having a break in half an hour.

9 26/01098/FUL - Dial House Hotel, High Street, Bourton-on-the-Water

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:22:02

I don't know whether I'm moving the...

Yes.

We need megaphones.

Not like me.

Okay, well I don't know where Councillor Evans is, but we're going to have to start I think.

Yes, I heard that but nonetheless you've had more than the two minutes allocated.

Okay, we're starting now, okay. So,

so this is the

The next application, which is the erection

of a single storey pavilion building for use as a restaurant

with associated landscaping and external works

at Dial House Hotel, High Street, Broughton on the water.

The applicant, the case officer is Helen Cooper

and the ward member is Councillor Waring.

Officer - 1:23:03

So can I ask Mrs. Cooper to do the presentation?

Thank you, Chair.

Okay, good afternoon, everyone.

So yes, this application relates to Dial House Hotel in Baltimore on the water.

So this is the site location plan. It's the area of red to the rear of Dial

House Hotel. And this slide here shows the historic kind of area. So the

buildings which are in orange are listed. So you can see the building kind of at

the bottom there which is like in an L shape. That's Dial House Hotel. And the

of the land that we're considering the restaurant on is to the rear of that.

The site, it's in the settlement boundary of Borton on the Water.

It's Darlhouse, as I've mentioned, is a greatly listed building.

It's also located in the Borton on the Water conservation area there, which is highlighted

in green.

It's also within the Cotswolds National Landscape.

You can also see from this image here that the site is surrounded by residential properties

around the rear, which is quite kind of crucial to the assessment as we'll kind of move on to.

So here are some photographs of the hotel just to help put it into context. So you can see it's

quite a lovely grade two listed building. The one on the left is the front elevation along the high

street and the image on the right is the rear elevation which shows the lower L -shape single

storey projection coming off it off of the building. So this is an aerial photograph of the site dating

from 2021. Just to give you a little bit of context, you can see the rear garden of the hotel.

There it's quite a green open space. The stretch of gravel, which you can see that's the car

parking area for the hotel, to the left of the garden. That's just to give you a bit of background

previously. In 2022, a tepee was erected at the site and subsequently they applied for planning

permission for it for a temporary period of time.

So this is a teepee that was put on site.

And that was used as a bar, a restaurant,

or cafe -type area at the hotel.

So it's like an additional facility.

You can see there that's quite in the middle of the garden

area.

So this was only given temporary permission.

It's just really a temporary structure.

But since then, they've kind of been

looking for a more permanent solution to keep this additional facility going in the hotel.

If I go on, this is a more recent application, which just replaced the teepee with a permanent

building and it was actually placed in the same position as the teepee at the site. It

took up much of that green area to the rear of the hotel. This application was actually

refused on design and heritage grounds and also and their concerns with the

residential amenity impact upon neighbouring properties. So this is a more

recent aerial photograph to show you what the site looks like now you can see

it's got some temporary structures just kind of to the rear of the property. The

teepee has been removed so that's kind of been removed a while ago but they are

still storing soft furnishings and things in the rear garden there.

So moving on to the actual proposal, there's just some pictures there of the temporary

structures.

So this is the existing site plan and then this is the proposed site plan.

And you can see that the proposed building, it's kind of the restaurant, it's just to

the rear.

So you can see it's got the green and the darker shades there and it's been pushed back

to the rear of the garden.

So the proposed elevation shows a single -storey contemporary or entry -style building.

And this has been kind of designed following kind of pre -application discussions with the

applicant.

And the conservation officer has kind of been very involved in the design process.

And there's now no objection from a conservation and heritage perspective to the proposal,

kind of subject to detailed design and materials conditions.

It's considered the proposal would preserve the setting and significant

solicited building and the character and appearance of the conservation area. So

if we move on to the floor plans you can see that it shows an internal

restaurant, bar, kitchen and WC and it is proposed an ancillary restaurant

associated with the main hotel use. And the condition has been recommended at the

end of the report which you can see and it's to kind of ensure that the

and is not operated as a separate planning unit. So it's very much tied to

the use of hotel. So in terms of the main issues with the application, the

principle of development is acceptable. It's within the development boundary and

the proposal would support the existing hotel business. Also generate kind of

three full -time jobs at the site. So it's kind of economic benefits there as well.

And the, sorry, let's just have a look.

In heritage and design, as mentioned,

you know, we no longer have any concerns.

This is considered to be sympathetic

to the site and surrounding area.

And with regards to residential amenity,

it is noted we have had kind of objections in

in relation to noise from the site

and concerns raised about odours lighting

and basically a general intensification of use at the site.

So under this application, they have submitted additional

supporting information, which wasn't the case under the

2024 application.

So they have done a noise impact assessment, and they've also

submitted kind of a noise management plan, which has been

reviewed by environmental health officers.

Kind of following review, a number of conditions have been

recommended to control the use and the operations on the site,

and overall that's considered to adequately mitigate for any

impact to neighbouring properties in terms of light, odours and noise. So

overall we are satisfied that the proposal can be carried out without

having a detrimental adverse impact upon neighbouring amenity. And the proposed

hours would be between 12 to 10 p .m. Monday to Saturday in back holidays and

12 to 4 p .m. on the Sunday. So it's kind of quite quite restricted there. So

again those conditions are available at the back of the port. So all other

matters including those related to parking biodiversity and trees are

considered acceptable and the current proposal is therefore supported and

subject to the conditions which are outlined at the end of the report. So

that kind of concludes the presentation so if anyone has any questions we'll

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:29:49

pass back over to you chair. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I'd now

like to ask the public speakers to come forward so the Town and Parish Council

Councillor Andy Roberts again, thank you.

For the objector, Julia and David Stevenson,

I understand represented by Fiona Formby.

Thank you very much.

Supporter, Kirsten Ng, how do you say your name?

Thank you.

The agent, Lynn Jones.

Thank you, and come forward.

That's it.

So I'll just remind you, you've each got three minutes.

So please put your most important points first,

in case you run out of time.

And we'll start from the right and work to the left.

So the first person to speak is Councillor Roberts

when you're ready.

Thank you, Chair.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:30:53

The sign is announced and we know there is proof.

It's coming this way.

Is that okay?

All right. Thank you.

Town/Parish Council - 1:31:03

Thank you, Chair. I'll start again now.

Councillor Andy Roberts, Vice Chair of Borton Parish Council and Chair of the Highways, sorry, Planning and Highways Committee.

First, I'd like to thank Mr. Potts who's not here now and other councillors

who've re -emphasised the fact that Borton is a village and not a town, so thank you for that.

The House, the Parish Council objects to this application as it deems it detrimental

to the curtilage of a listed building and on the grounds of potential noise and nuisance

to neighbouring residents with specific concerns regarding noise that could have adverse

affect neighbouring residents from increased customer numbers, the location

of the proposed oratory near to bordering gardens and noise from

ventilation machinery. The original noise assessment was originally carried out in

November, a quiet time for the village not represented of busy peak tourist

periods. We feel there's potential odour impact and light pollution on neighbouring

properties and the council would prefer that the net biodiversity gain be made entirely

on site and not offset. There is also concern that there has been a history of general breaches

of planning conditions at the location regarding previous temporary structures not being removed

within agreed timeframes. Thank you.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:32:32

Thank you very much. Can I ask Miss Form B now please to speak?

Objector - 1:32:53

and the opportunity to serve dozens, if not hundreds of more people in their extensive

gardens as they've done previously.

This is not a restaurant extension to a boutique hotel with only 13 bedrooms.

Over the years we have witnessed various structures literally appear overnight and without planning

permission and so now we find it very hard to understand the permit decision by planning

officers given the lack of enforcement of orders to date.

Why wasn't the removal of the temporary structures enforced in April 25, the toilet block temporary

pizza kitchen and a tent remain to this day and the management continue to ignore council

regulatory decisions and nothing is done about this.

Our faith in the hotel management is damaged

beyond repair.

Moving on to this proposal,

we note the proposed conditions go some way

to addressing our issues, but we'd be very concerned

about compliance and enforcement

without which they're meaningless.

How is adding 40 more covers inside a pavilion

with lively acoustics, hard surfaces, opening doors,

roof vents and windows, plus 20 more covers

and a new hard standing outside without regard

to noise mitigation, how is this acceptable? And their noise survey, which was conducted

in November, carries no weight at all to us. Also, the garden plan does not commit to keeping

the hedge or providing a sound barrier on the car park or roadside of the building,

which is essential. How would they restrict the outside seating to 20 on a terrace when

they have a garden where people will be able to buy takeaway food and drinks and sit on

on the provided garden furniture.

It won't be long before a fuller kitchen is required

in the pavilion and questions will remain

about noise generated by heat pumps, ventilation,

extractor funds, etc. More equipment will be moved in.

Menus will be increased and there will be more noise.

We have suffered this already.

Your officer's report mentions supporting the local economy

and job creation but does not address the wider cumulative

negative effects of expanding a business, attracting visitors,

and the over -tourism of Borton, which is currently experiencing.

It has become now a nationally known issue with lots of bad press.

Local people do not want any more development, but certainly not of tourist -led businesses.

Borton currently has over, wait for this, 198 job vacancies available.

More jobs are not required.

No one should be denied the right to enjoy their own homes and gardens.

It is a residential area.

We need the right to sleep and no one should have to be made to suffer ill health, but people are and it's not fair

So we ask you that you please hear us

Please support our parish council and their considered opinion and at large that this business proposal simply does not fit the space and style

Of the Dial House Hotel, it will never just be a restaurant extension

It is a blatant and obvious attempt to position another business on the premises

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Supporter - 1:35:53

Thank you very much.

Now for the supporter, Kirsten Ng. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Kirsten Ng. I'm a neighbour of Dial House and I'm a former governing council member of the National Trust.

I was representing the Council for the Protection of Rural England.

So I have a greater knowledge of protected landscapes, listed buildings, vernacular architecture and conservation areas than is typical in this area.

I want to consider Dial House as a listed building. When you look at a listed building from a heritage perspective, you ask yourself first, what sort of a listed building is it? Why was it listed?

It's listed as a vernacular building, and the key thing to the vernacular buildings is local distinctiveness.

There was a report published by the Cotswolds National Landscape Board in 2003, which sets out the key criteria for local distinctiveness.

This report has been much neglected and ignored in council deliberations in recent times and it's a really key

Document that everybody needs to read and everybody needs to consider what it tells you about vernacular buildings is what's key to them

Is that local materials are used and traditional methods are followed vernacular architecture is the opposite of plight architecture

It responds to the need of the owner. It's idiosyncratic and it's evolutionary

And so from my perspective, from a heritage perspective, this proposal accords with what the most important aspects of listed building, which is locally distinct, is using local materials and it's showing high standards of craftsmanship.

And so I urge everybody to consult this report so that they understand the importance on this area.

The Cotswold National Landscape is protected for the same reason that vernacular architecture is protected.

it's regionally distinct, nationally important, regionally distinct.

There are six factors of natural beauty which people fail to take account of

and I urge the council to take account of in all of their discussions.

So the six components of natural beauty are landscape quality, scenic quality,

natural heritage, cultural heritage, relative wildness and relative tranquilly.

Relative wildness is a factor that doesn't really apply to the Cotswolds,

That's in the Dow report from, I think, about 1930, I think.

The most important factor of natural beauty in the Cotswolds is cultural heritage.

If you look at the Cotswolds AOMB designation history series, you will see that the Cotswolds

was listed as England's finest cultural landscape, and it was listed as England's finest cultural

landscape because of the exceptional quality of our vernacular architecture.

and this is something else I want people to understand,

is that the vernacular architecture in England,

in the Cotswolds is not typical.

It's considered to be the finest in the country.

It is known for what we call

Pevesner's conscious aesthetic intention.

A lot of people think that vernacular architecture

is functional or historic.

Actually, it has a far broader definition

and the European Landscape Convention

requires a very broad understanding

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:39:12

of vernacular architecture. Thank you very much for that explanation. Can I now ask Mrs Jones to speak as the agent?

Applicant/Agent - 1:39:17

Chair, Councillors, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Lynn Jones of

Planning Ventures and I'm speaking on behalf of the applicant the Dial House

Hotel. We are mindful that these proposals have raised concerns with

local neighbours and we've worked rigorously with your officers to address

these including through two pre -app inquiries. To recap the Dial House is a

great two -lister building on the edge of the centre of Wharton. It's been used as a

hotel since 1988. The applicant took it on in 2021 and initially sought to

expand its facilities with bar and function space in the rear garden and

temporary planning permission was granted for a teepee and toilet block.

This has now expired and the teepee has gone, although some decking, toilet block

and an outdoor kitchen still remain on site.

The business has now evolved so that the hotel is no longer

pursuing the evening bar trade.

The intention is now to create additional dining space

to better cater for upmarket food and daytime coffee

customers.

This shift reinforces the core offer of the hotel,

but is also intended to generate income to reinvest

in the listed building.

The proposals are now for a modest restaurant pavilion

at the end of the garden.

As agreed with your conservation officer,

the design aesthetic is for a contemporary or orangery building, blending glass,

cotswolds, stone and green roofs and surrounded by an arts and crafts

landscaping scheme. The remaining decking, toilet block and outdoor kitchen will

all be removed. The restaurant will operate within the hours of the existing

licence for the garden with all customers cleared by 10 p .m. and 4 p .m.

on Sundays. It will not be used for events or live music performances at any time.

It will not include a full catering kitchen as most food will be prepped in the hotel.

It will share all the hotel delivery, refuse, recycling and car parking facilities, although

some new cycle parking will be provided.

Ensure it will function as an ancillary dining space to the hotel, not as an independent

new premises.

A noise impact assessment of the proposals has been submitted and accepted by your Environmental

Health Officers.

It is based on a winter survey of the garden, although that was during an outdoor Christmas

market, but the assessment still confirms that noise levels with the restaurant will

be acceptable throughout the year.

Insulation, fixed windows and mechanical ventilation will ensure that there will be minimal breakout

noise from the building, whilst the outside terrace will only be in use when the hotel

garden will be in use anyway.

This is also a town centre location where food and drink uses would ordinarily be expected

to be located and open up to 10pm. In addition to the building design measures,

noise and management plans will support the daily operation of the restaurant. These can

be robustly monitored by planning conditions and will actually allow the Council more control

over this site than it currently has. So in summary, the proposals represent the

next iteration of the Dial House. An opportunity to restore the garden, secure the listed building,

support the viability of the hotel and contribute to the tourism offer

important. Thank you very much.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:42:36

I'd like to ask the members who attended the site inspection briefing to speak.

We'll start with Councillor Lajed. Thank you.

Councillor Julia Judd - 1:42:49

Thank you, Chair. Yes, so it was a very good site site inspection briefing. Thank

you and it gave me a very clear idea of the issues there. The residential

properties. I would say that it's quite unusual to have such substantial

residential properties right in that sort of area of town. It felt like quite

a commercial area. I mean I walked to get there for clothes shops and things and

then all of a sudden it's a hotel and it seemed quite normal and natural to have a

garden at the back of the hotel where people would eat and drink and the

The history of that back garden is quite interesting with the...

Something is going to happen there, and I think that this having worked with

the

Heritage officers you can see why that orangery with the green roof

has come about. The parking I don't think would be much different. I do

totally agree with one of the speakers who talked about the hedging that it

but I would say that's imperative I like the fact that it was there so so that

Legal Services - 1:44:11

was it sorry yes if we can keep comments to the comment section I can't say my

Councillor Paul Evans - 1:44:21

impressions thank you councillor Evans I don't really have much to to add other

van the back of that building the hotel the garden area looked a little like it

do with a little bit of redevelopment a little bit of love to turn it into

something that would fit with the listed building itself I can see I got a sense

of the proximity of residential properties to the proposed site and

there seemed to be quite a bit of tree coverage and the hedging as well and I

would say yes the hedging is is imperative that that's that's preserved

as a both as a visual block but also the sound block and an acoustic block as

well but not much to add apart from the fact actually the car park was full at

10 o 'clock on a wet September morning which came as a bit of a surprise but I

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:45:14

Councillor David Fowles - 1:45:17

guess that's bought another water for you. Thank you councillor Fowles. Sorry I'm

I'm eating a mint in preparation for what I'm about to say.

In terms of, I know the site well, visited there quite often.

It's a huge garden and certainly what was being proposed in terms of the work that we've done,

as the officer outlined it when we were there,

and thanks for an excellent presentation with excellent visual aids.

I thought it would be a huge improvement on what's already there.

However, I have two concerns being there.

Sorry, Councillor, can we keep it to the site, site inspection?

That's what I'm just doing. I'm just about to do that.

Right, wonderful, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

The first concern, sorry I didn't mean to be rude, but I'm just saying that I thought the building looked great on the site because it was a big garden.

I thought that's, isn't that relation to a site visit?

Wonderful, yes. Sorry.

I have concerns the point about the car park which is the car park that I asked

the question of the officer was there any additional car parking I think it's

the same car park and yes whenever I've been there it's quite full so if we're

going to add more people we're going to add more cars but my main concern on

site was the proximity of the residential properties and therefore

when we come to talk about that it's very interesting to hear what the

said and what the objective said so in terms of where it was located and have a

problem with that have concerns about car parking and the proximity of the

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:46:49

residents. Thank you. Councillor Foust. Thank you.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:46:56

Councillor Coleman. Chair, my hand went up mainly to stress that we did receive on

our desks as we sat down something that Councillor Waring would probably have

out if you've been able to sit with us today.

I was going to get people's attention to that after we had this conversation.

Thank you very much. Well, in terms of the site visit on a gloomy day, it was striking that the hotel,

I think both the rear and two sides, we could see residential properties and some of them quite modern

and three storeys high with additional balconies which struck me as odd when they must have known

they were buying a property near a hotel and restaurant but that is part of what

we had to do so is solve that possible conflict and minimizer apart from that

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:47:51

I don't think of anything to add what you said. Thank you very much I don't

think there's anyone else went who I haven't asked but I was there yes it's

interesting to have no Councillor Bridges wasn't there for the first site

inspection briefing.

Oh, you went afterwards.

Okay, you had a look yourself.

No, far away, if you have something to say, said.

Councillor Nick Bridges - 1:48:16

I say it's interesting if you don't get along with the group.

I went afterwards.

I'm actually agreeing with what people are saying here,

which is great.

I've got no problems with the visual thing.

I will pick up on the comment about it being a Bijou hotel

rather than the pub.

those two things are normally quite different. I thought it was very very

classy actually. Good retail shops nearby and then you have the kind of oh

there's some houses quite close by. So I did pick up on those things even though

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:48:53

I wasn't there ma 'am. Thank you Councillor Bridges. I'm sorry to admit you from the

There we go.

Yeah, so I was there too.

And yeah, it was very interesting.

It is right in the centre of the village

and surrounded by houses with quite a big car park already.

I think as Councillor Evans said,

it's obvious that something needs to be done.

The garden is looking a bit shabby and unloved.

And so something to improve the curtilage

of this listed building would be welcome.

It's difficult to know how much difference this proposed

restaurant block would make, bearing in mind that there are

tables and chairs in the garden already.

So clearly people are spitting out eating and drinking in that

garden already.

And it might be appropriate if we asked our environmental

services officers to make a comment before we move into,

do you think? I think probably during questions. During questions, yeah. If you're ready to answer

questions that would be great. Yeah, so that was, yeah, there are obviously a lot

of trees around it, so visually it's quite sheltered from from the

surrounding houses, although they're closed. How much of a noise barrier that

would create is open to debate. So, Councillor Coleman has asked me to remind

you that we did in our additional pages get a letter from Councillor Waring which would

probably serve instead of his report as a ward member. If you've not had time to read

it I'm going to let you have a couple of minutes now if you'd like to have a look at that before

we move on to the questions.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:51:31

Okay, have you had one in that? We'll move on to questions then. Councillor Evans.

Councillor Paul Evans - 1:51:39

Thank you, Chair. I wonder if you can clarify for me the point about the restricted hours

on this. I'm trying to work out whether those hours are part of planning conditions

or whether there are licenced premises restrictions because what's at the back of my mind is whether

this building is there or not, the garden could be used during licenced hours. Do these

restricted hours place any restriction on the use of the garden per se or just the building?

Officer - 1:52:16

Well, the condition, so the condition 10 just relates to the pavilion building itself at

present.

I mean, it's something we could discuss further with, you know, under the noise management

plan.

You know, when that comes in in draught form, and that would clearly outline exactly what

they intended to do.

But at the moment, yes, the condition just solely relates to the pavilion building rather

Councillor Paul Evans - 1:52:40

than the garden area.

So at four o 'clock on a Sunday afternoon if it's a nice day and there are people dining in the restaurant the building shuts and

people in there could move out into the garden and carry on drinking and doing whatever they were doing eating

until the end of their licenced hours, is that correct?

Officer - 1:53:01

Well, yes potentially that the garden is has use as a hotel anyway as such

Councillor Paul Evans - 1:53:07

The garden is part of the licenced premises and therefore the licencing hours, right? Thank you

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:53:10

Councillor David Fowles - 1:53:15

Councillor Fowls. Thank you, Chairman. The principal concern

seems from what the speakers were talking about was the whole issue of amenity and noise,

et cetera, and I'd like to compliment the parish council and the objector for the way

which they spoke, particularly the objector.

And that's endorsed by the ward member.

So this noise assessment was done in November,

and we all recognise that's a quieter time and no one's

in the garden, et cetera, et cetera.

So it reminds me of Mandy Rice -Davidson.

They would say that, wouldn't they?

If you're going to do a noise assessment, you're not going

to submit one that's going to show

that it's the numbers are not actually working in favour of things. So why was it done in

November and is there a possibility that we could get a new noise assessment at a time

of year where there's going to be a higher level of noise? Because I'm not confident

that the information we have is accurate and the impact it's going to have on residents

based on what we've heard. But that's got nothing to do with the building and the interesting

discussion that we had with the supporter about the, it is a

sort of heritage asset, et cetera, et cetera.

It's all about, for me, the amenity, the impact

on the residents.

I don't think we've got sufficient information.

So can we get more information?

Is that possible, looking at the case, Officer?

So the noise assessment, I think it's the background levels,

is my understanding, that were carried out in November.

And then I have spoken in detail with the Environmental Health

Officers, and I think they've then used similar events

on top of that.

I don't know if you're able to explain that in more detail for members at all.

Yeah, so I'm April Paintain.

I'm the case officer for environmental health.

My hearing.

Sorry.

I'm the case officer for this case for environmental health.

Whilst we weren't overly happy with the...

You weren't what, sorry?

We weren't overly happy with the...

You weren't overly happy?

Officer - 1:55:20

No, more in the sense of the fact that the noise impact assessment

and the manner in which it was conducted

and how they used certain things in the report,

what we were able to get from that report

is enough information for us to be able to kind of do

our own assessment on it, really.

So what they did in November was they took a five -day

measurement, but they were looking generally to inform

on the background levels for that period of time.

Then what they did was they used predicted measurements of another venue which was a similar type situation that they'd

measured actual noise levels in the past so they used that data to inform their level so they they would have

You know they would have a measured at another venue which was similar

You know use catering used restaurant they take those noise measurements as a predicted level and they then

feed them into this report that we were happy with that data that they use and how they

worked out those levels in terms of what they used in the report. It does say that a bit

further along in the report obviously in the beginning it says that they did a five -day

measurement at this site so we looked at those predicted levels we looked at the distances

of the residential premises this application is obviously for a restaurant and a kind of

cafe stroke experience. The other things we've looked at in terms of the their

application is that the duration in which it they're proposing to the

opening hours and also the building itself during kind of the winter months

that people will be more indoors so the the noise assessment that they produce

reflected those two different scenarios so people being indoors during a winter

period and then outdoors during the summer. What they have concluded in this

report is that the if if it is solely used as a restaurant cafe people kind of

incidental dining and also low -level background music at the nearest

residential premises it will be a low impact. It might not be that they won't

hear anything at all because obviously there will be more comings and goings

and what we have said is obviously this represents a kind of intensification of

use of the premises, but from how it's been currently used

with a TP and a bar area in that garden,

effectively this proposal is better than that,

but going forward, it is going to be an intensification

of the use of the garden.

There are obviously in terms of this application,

we're solely looking at it on the basis

that it's a cafe restaurant with incidental background music

But obviously, Darl House is a separate matter. It's a hotel, it can have events, it can use part of its licencing.

So this application, they would have to also obviously put in a licencing application and we'd look at their licencing conditions together.

Councillor David Fowles - 1:58:31

Can I ask another question? In relation to that, could I direct it at the same officer?

Yes, of course.

If you've got an equivalent, if you've monitored it or looked at it in the context of an equivalent type of business,

would that include the issue of the car parking?

Because the car park runs all the way down one side butting up to the residents and cars come and go all hours at the moment.

So your assessment and comparison with us, with somewhere else, is that a similar situation?

where there is a car park as well as the noise generated by people?

Officer - 1:59:08

So this assessment is looking at patron noise, so patron noise and people sitting in a restaurant dining or sitting outside a restaurant dining.

The current car park is obviously existing with the current business.

Councillor David Fowles - 1:59:21

The third question is what I would call the Borton factor.

Borton in the evenings, in the summer, is rammed with people outside.

And have we got a view on that, either the case officer or you?

Because if you go on the other side of Dial House, that's where the river is.

There's an awful lot of noise whenever I've been up there in the evening, certainly.

I call it the Borton factor.

I'm not sure what you're implying that.

The Borton's a noisy place in the evenings during the summer already.

That's what I'm implying.

So obviously this proposal in terms of their noise management plan they're

saying that the that it will close this area will close at 10 p .m. so yeah you

know obviously when that company went out and did their background levels they

did it for five days so you know they've got a relative background for that area.

They've suggested that the noise from this proposed use of this restaurant

dining space in the garden will be kind of just about relative to the current

background so it's not kind of it's not it's not kind of significantly

Officer - 2:00:37

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:00:41

increasing any background levels for patron noise. Okay. Yes it was very

helpful to have our ERS colleagues here. Thank you so much and Councillor

Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:00:48

to Brasington. Thank you chair. A number of questions. Previous applications for this

site have been refused and one of the reasons for refusal was impact on

residential amenity. How does this application different, different from

Officer - 2:01:06

those previous ones? So if you look I think we have put the reason for refusal

in the report and it's really to do with insufficient information and I think the

previous one, we were unsure if it was going to be low background music proposed.

We just didn't have enough information submitted as part of the application.

So that then formed a reason for refusal.

But under this application, they have carried out the noise impact assessment and

submitted a draught noise management plan.

And also they have confirmed that they are just going to be using it for

low background music.

They're not proposing live events or amplified music,

which is the big concern really.

And previously something that we raised concern with.

So they've kind of followed our advice really and scaled it down to try and, you know,

Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:01:51

obviously respect that there are neighbours nearby and we want to protect that residential immunity.

Just a question as to what's background noise?

Music background noise? Yes, it's kind of like

low kind of

music

Officer - 2:02:10

that you can play in a cafe. But all conditions are going to be precise and if you're just saying background music to me that's not precise.

I think that's something that would be covered in the noise management plan.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:02:21

Okay, we'll disagree. I didn't go on the site so I don't know, but what separates

the hotel garden and the residence garden? Is it a brick wall or is it a fence

Officer - 2:02:30

or a hedge? I think it's mainly kind of like a stone wall. There is

quite a lot of vegetation on the site as well but obviously that wouldn't provide

kind of acoustic measures I don't believe but there are like a stone wall

Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:02:44

around the site. Do we know the height of the stone walls? I haven't measured them

Officer - 2:02:50

but I think they were cut like a couple of metres high. Because the vegetation

Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:02:56

itself won't provide any noise attenuation it doesn't. The stone walls

are different. Right okay one of the most difficult things to control is noise

some people when we're outside, how is it proposed to control the noise and most

Officer - 2:03:18

people are outside? Again I think that's something that's managed in the, you know,

outlined within the noise management plan and it's kind of the management

have to kind of ask people to kind of move on I imagine as such but that

Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:03:33

that's dealt with by planning condition. Yeah, it doesn't happen in practise.

Condition 9 of the noise management plans says there should be an annual review,

but it doesn't say who's carrying out the review.

So can I ask who would carry out the review?

Officer - 2:04:00

I am just reading through it.

Officer - 2:04:10

For the applicant would look to review it and obviously look to review any kind of complaints

that had come in.

I think in noise management plans, if there is a complaint made by the public

to the owner of the hotel, they then invite that member of the public or the

resident in and discuss it with them and they look to put steps in place to try

and, you know, ensure that those issues don't arise again.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:04:36

So if a plan is going to be reviewed by management, do we need to put that in

rather than leave it fake.

Again, conditions have got to be precise.

Officer - 2:04:50

Well, records of its annual review. Do you mean kind of after the noise management plan records of its review

by management? We could make that

change, add that wording in if you wanted to.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:05:09

And condition number 12 on page 150 refers to the lighting.

We normally put a sentence in there that any proposed alterations have to be submitted

for prior approval.

Do we need to pull that in?

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:05:33

I hate that sentence because it doesn't have a definition of how you would make that change.

If you wanted to make that change, you have to resubmit the compliance to the conditions

or do a variation to that.

Otherwise, the condition is open -ended.

Can you send us an email or a letter or give us a phone call?

There is no control mechanism.

I have asked to stop using that.

I am not a fan of that wording.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:05:59

it leaves it too open as to how you approve changes in writing. And going back

to a point which Councillor Evans made, we've already got people in the garden

who can sit there until drinking hours, sitting there talking loudly, but that

already can happen. That can happen yes at the site, it does have the hotel

use and it does have a kind of at the moment as you people saw the site

inspection briefing there is kind of large seating area which is quite close

to the hotel and it spills out into the wider garden. Have there been any

complaints about noise from people in the garden area? Yes there have been

complaints that have been received I think it was potentially more when the

The ATP was in situ possibly, but I think they were managed.

I'd have to ask my colleagues in environmental health,

but I don't think we've had any recent noise complaints in.

But they have been dealt with, and I think that the hotel did

respond to those, and they've tailed off.

There's been no enforcement action as in issuing notices?

No.

Okay.

Officer - 2:07:21

I can add, just to clarify, obviously the use of the pub garden, that will be down to

their licenced conditions.

Overarching that is obviously still our environmental health legislation and the licencing conditions

as well.

So if in any event the use of the pub garden becomes an issue and there's problems in that

area, then obviously that is still under their licence and also under the environmental health

legislation and we've got statutory nuisance powers which we can look at both either action

under that legislation or call for review of licencing requirements. This would, this

actual premises would have to also be covered under its licencing conditions as well, so

variation may need to be submitted for this. So we would look at that as part of licencing

in terms of not causing a public nuisance. So there aren't other streams if the, once

planning conditions is that that we can look at so it prevents nuisance

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:08:22

Councillor Julia Judd - 2:08:25

occurring. Thank you. Councillor Judge. Thank you chair. I am quite confused

because so many of these planning conditions seem to me to be more

licencing committee. Licencing committee. So if if you the hours under this

planning application are until 10 p .m.

Is it possible in theory that the applicant then goes to

apply to licencing for different hours and and

if not, why not and and how which takes precedence? I mean what what if

I mean, it's a muddle, isn't it? I just think that one there's a bit of a crossover going on here. Can you explain that?

Officer - 2:09:09

Yes, I mean they would need to adhere to the, in terms of the pavilion building,

they would need to adhere to the planning, the hours put on the planning

application, on the planning condition. So they would need to open and use that

building between the hours specified here. So it is different to licencing but

Councillor Julia Judd - 2:09:30

they would still need to adhere to this. So there would be absolutely no

variation on that even if they went to licencing and applied for a later

licence to serve alcohol and let's say licencing didn't pick up the fact that

this is on the planning application for the actual building which would take

Officer - 2:09:48

precedence? The planning would in in our opinion because the the planning

permission it relates to the building so that would need to be closed so we could

take enforcement action in that respect if there was a breach of condition.

Legal Services - 2:10:06

Sorry if I may, I assist with the licencing committee as well.

They would have to comply with both, both the licencing, any licencing condition or

permitted hours and any planning condition or their unlimited hours.

And it would be if one was less than the other, they would have to comply.

That would be their first limitation of opening.

and if they wanted to extend if they had a further premises till midnight per se

Officer - 2:10:43

then they would have to condition and I can see my colleague so their current

licence for the for dollhouse and the use of the garden

alcohol sales to cease in the garden area by 11 and the whole garden is to be

clear by quarter past 11. So these were written in line with the use of that

um sorry 10. Sorry sorry I just I just read it and then I read it wrong and so

the alcohol sales in the garden have to cease at 10 and the whole garden area

for dollhouse is to be cleared by 10 15 so the actual use of the garden under

their licence is to be cleared by 10 15 so when we looked at the planning

conditions for the building it was in line with you know getting everybody out

Councillor Julia Judd - 2:11:31

the garden by 10. 10, 15. I'm still really confused so if if the if the applicant

if there is noise if there is noise smell music lighting problems who do the

residents complain to licencing or planning or both I mean it's very

Officer - 2:11:53

confusing I think. So if residents have a complaint about noise or nuisance then

they come to environmental health. Licensible activity such as cell of

alcohol or it's kind of covered under the licence but we would deal with that

in conjunction with them with the licencing department so generally... ERS

not the planning. Environmental health and the palazzo in terms of the breach

of, so if say if they were to use the garden and that area and it was half past 10 at night,

obviously that would therefore be a breach of both their licence conditions and also planning,

because their their planning condition says that that that area has to be closed by 10 o 'clock.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:12:35

If I can jump in my enforcement hat on. Thank you. We as a council will triage these complaints if

planning gets a report of breach relating to noise condition we will raise that with our ERS

colleagues vice versa we do have that dialogue from an enforcement point of

view typically we will take it forward with the most effective legislation that

we're going to be able to use if it's a noise nuisance and actually planning we

haven't got much power but noise is the stronger group to go down that's what we

would do but we would work collaboratively on that we're not siloed

departments there would be if it comes into planning it would get circulated

Councillor Julia Judd - 2:13:11

to the others vice versa that does happen often and it is that is how we work.

To be absolutely clear if any of these issues came up if if hypothetically this

application is is granted today and if any of these issues came up and the

residents wanted to make a complaint to council all they have to do is write to

a general email in the council and that would be picked up by ERS planning and

licencing is that correct wouldn't recommend writing to a well you yes in

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:13:44

theory you could write some services and it would be distributed to the

relevant teams or we'd work it out together I obviously with noise nuisance

there are requirements to submit noise records and other things planning we

might want other information so we might go out and seek that but equally you

could either submit it to the customer services or you could come through one

one of the departments and we've either way

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:14:02

it would get circulated around to the relevant teams.

Councillor Paul Evans - 2:14:04

Councillor Evans.

Can I, I'm still, I'm personally still a little confused

as well, I'm looking at this map

and that we have on page 159,

where we have the building,

so the restricted hours under this planning application

are for the building and the terrace

immediately outside it to be used

between 12 and 10 and then 12 and 4. The 10 p .m. limit is akin to the licencing

conditions which apply to the rest of the garden which I note is going to be

thankfully done up to be a new formal garden but it will be used but it can be

used till 10 o 'clock at which point irrespective of where alcohol was

purchased on the premises, the garden would have to be cleared by 10 .15. So the maximum

under licencing conditions, the latest that there would be people in that garden, in theory,

talking, drinking, whatever, would be 10 .15 singing of an evening. That would be it. And

actually that tunes in with the time that the pavilion is in use as well. And if there

we're a problem that will be dealt with under the relevant strictest powers that

that we have to enforce okay so whether that building was there or not there is

there is one slight caveat to that in the fact that the premises as part of

being a licenced premises it can apply for temporary event notices the same

provision of prize we approve them and also that's covered by statutory nuisance

so but they could in theory put in attempt to have an event in the garden

and then that vent be allowed to go on longer. But that would happen

irrespective of the weather that building was there or not so if we if we

refuse this today that can still happen and there can still be noise emanating

from that premises. Yeah but they can't have events in that building. But they couldn't have anything in the

pavilion itself but they could have a tent and use the garden area. Okay right that that that's

helpful I think. I think I'm less confused than I was when I started

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:16:24

speaking. I'm marginally less confused but I think I am. Okay thank you.

Councillor David Fowles - 2:16:25

Councillor Fowles. Well I'm not confused .com at all. Yeah I just want to clarify two

things. The licencing hours for the actual hotel itself obviously would be

longer. They are longer aren't they? So if someone could have a drink in the hotel

until 11 o 'clock, step outside, we'd expect they could go outside into the

garden to have their drink in the evening. No, because the

house's licencing condition is that the garden area shall be cleared of all

customers by 10 .15. Okay, okay, my bigger question is in relation to the

conditions. So I am right on page 149 and 150, if we grant consent prior

the use of the development we have to get a noise management plan which isn't

coming to us today that will be dealt with by officers yeah not us so we'd be

asked to make a decision without a noise management plan over the page on 150

we've got a number 11 installation of the pizza oven with an extractor system

but again that has to be submitted to the local authority for approval before

they can do anything to make sure cooking goes so again we don't have that

now and thirdly the lighting strategy as they're calling it design strategy that

also has to be submitted okay so there's lots of manana stuff going on here for

the impacts on the visual amenity for for residents and under comments I'd

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:17:55

like to make some comments when we come to that thank you Jim was there a

Councillor David Fowles - 2:18:00

question in amongst that yeah surprised Mari didn't pick me up um she normally

does. The question was are we making decision with all these other things

relating to noise, light, odour pending after we've made the decision. So we're

making a decision without sight of any of those things which I assume is normal

but you know it seems to be a lot of manana decisions that are going to be

taken once we make our decision here in relation to the impact on the neighbours.

That's what I'm trying to ask, clumsily.

I thought I did ask that.

And you're saying yes, that's correct.

Yeah?

Officer - 2:18:41

Yes.

Yes, you.

So we have had a noise management plan, like a draught of it, but obviously there was some

technical bits, so we put a condition in there to ask them to provide one, I think once it

was on approval.

I can't remember what the wording was now, but we have seen a noise management plan as

part of the which been form part of this application but there's one to be

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:19:09

approved further down the line once we have more details. Thank you.

Councillor Nikki Ind - 2:19:15

Councillor Innes you've been waiting patiently. Thank you chair I'm completely

confused with this licencing situation only because just as an example I come

to the Dahl house for Sunday lunch have a lovely lunch by myself a nice bottle

wine that closes at four o 'clock but I can sit in the garden till 11 or sorry

10 15 and carry on drinking so that from a noise point of view nothing changes

that I find that completely baffling that you know you're going to say you

can stop using that that restaurant ancillary restaurant but actually we'll

close the doors at 4 o 'clock but you know take your bottle of wine and sit in

So it just seems a bit of a nonsense to me.

I am concerned about the residential, this whole residential amenity, the fact that clearly there's more planned.

I'm concerned about how we enforce this because it was raised by both the town council and the objective that enforcement of previous situations,

whether that be the removal of structures that were there longer than

they should have been or structures that's there has clearly there hasn't

been any enforcement I don't think from us question have we enforced anything

within there and then I suppose another question again about this additional

building which looks lovely it's ancillary to the restaurant if I choose

to have my wedding there can I then have a wedding in that not that I'm already

married obviously. Could you, you know, could that be used for a wedding? For

example, if it's an if it's an ancillary to the restaurant, it's a restaurant you're

having. It just seems all a little bit confusing to me is what it's what it's

restricted to do is it only well if you're going to order off the restaurant

menu but you can go out on a Sunday afternoon once we shut the doors and you

carry on till 10 o 'clock. This whole mishmash of licencing, planning, it just

doesn't sit well with me. It seems like there's a lot of unknowns. Okay, thank you.

Officer - 2:21:27

First of all to address the enforcement, so you know we are aware that

the TP was there kind of longer than the temporary permission and we did

ask them to remove it and also there are some other temporary structures on site

that we are aware of. The applicant has been working with us, there's planning

officers and you know with our specialist officers like the conservation

design officers so we've kind of had things in the pipeline that we've been

dealing with with them so whilst we've kind of got the applications running and

in with the with the local authority it's not not being deemed expedient to

take action against those because this is that's kind of how we work with them

really so they are kind of you know approaching us and they've done two

applications to kind of achieve a design that we think is sympathetic to the

site and surrounding area. So hopefully that addresses that question. In terms of

if you could have a wedding there, we have applied a recommended condition 19

which said it shall be used only as a restaurant ancillary, so not a wedding

venue. I think one of the key things we were concerned about initially under the

24 application as well is that it could potentially be used for events and

potentially live music and that's something we very much discouraged because of the noise issues at the site. So really the low low background music

things like weddings you would expect a lot of noise and loud kind of amplified music.

So I don't think it would be suitable for the as a wedding venue anyway, because that's something we've specifically

asked them not to not to put in in that building.

Councillor Nikki Ind - 2:23:00

I just come back on that. I mean you could have a small wedding where you just want a meal and that could be the absolute use of that.

So if the applicants could ask for a ten could they have an event in the garden, sale of alcohol, you know.

I'm just, I just feel like it's a bit, bit woolly as in just to say well it's just ancillary to a restaurant.

Well, you can have a small wedding and go to a nice hotel, restaurant and have a wedding.

And that's fine. And if it's on a Saturday, you can stay till 10 o 'clock.

And I understand that. I just find it's all just a bit messy.

It doesn't seem very structured to me and clear as to what is allowed, what isn't allowed.

The timings are all different, you know close this building by four o 'clock, but you can stay in the garden till 10 15

Yeah, I think it just seems very messy to me. Sorry

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:23:59

Okay is the licence limited to four o 'clock on a Sunday to

Officer - 2:24:23

It is just their normal hotel opening hours and then the garden, it is the garden use

that finishes. I think the four o 'clock, that has been presented by the applicant, so it

is not us saying you have to have it shut at four o 'clock. That has been presented by

the applicant as we're going to close it at 4 o 'clock.

It is tricky because the licencing and obviously these

licenced premises can hold events.

There's the deregulation that which allows people to have

like licenced venues to have live music.

Obviously they can't do any of that without causing,

you know, if they're causing a statutory nuisance.

So there is no matter what happens

under different regimes planning licencing,

if they're doing something loud enough or frequently enough

that it is causing a nuisance to the neighbours, the environmental health

environment and statutory nuisance legislation is what we look at for those

instances and there is guidance for outdoor events and the number of outdoor

events that people can hold which which we use when we are assessing anything

that goes on outdoors.

Councillor Paul Evans - 2:25:32

So, well, I'm labouring the point again on licencing and planning, and I am aware of

the time we are taking on this.

However, for my absolute and possibly colleagues' absolute clarity, if we were to pass this

today, if the licencing hours, the hours for use of that building would be 12 till 10 and

then 12 to 4. If the Dial House Hotel were to then apply for a variation to

their licence that said actually the garden can be open till 11 including on

a Sunday does that mean that this building would have to shut at 4 but

that this that the variation of the licence could carry on till 11 o 'clock

Is that my understanding? Is that correct? So they couldn't then have

people in that building after four o 'clock because planning said they

couldn't but they could have people in the garden till...

Officer - 2:26:41

Generally as a licenced condition for premises that want to use gardens that are near

residential premises we wouldn't permit anything past ten o 'clock for a licence

condition. So if they have people in the garden and after that time they

would be in breach of those licence conditions.

Councillor Paul Evans - 2:26:57

So am I right in saying then that any issues of noise

and disturbance, et cetera, are more matters for licencing

than they are for planning and actually have little relation

to this application?

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:27:14

Because they fall under a different enforcement.

No.

Noise impacts and impact on residential communities

very much a material planning consideration.

We do have to consider that.

The point we're trying to make is that hours for Monday to Saturday bank holidays,

the licencing and planning match up. That's probably by design, but equally it could have

been an accident, but it's not. There is a slight deviation on Sundays, however that four o 'clock

restriction on the pavilion building applies because of the planning commission, even if

the licence says otherwise. They might be able to use the garden around it, but they cannot access

the facilities within the pavilion building. Okay, I think we've probably exhausted questions now,

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:27:48

So we're going to go on to debate and comment,

Councillor Fowles.

Councillor David Fowles - 2:27:54

Yeah, fire away.

Okay, thank you, Chairman.

Right, as far as I'm concerned,

there are three local people or organisations

that have told us their concerns

about impact on the amenity.

First is the Parish Council,

who have a lot of history with this site,

which has been articulated by Councillor Brasington.

The second on behalf of the objectors was the lady who spoke brilliantly about her concerns on behalf of her neighbours.

And the third is the ward member.

And the ward member says here, the evidence now available, including the aeon assessments,

acknowledgement of the difference between winter and summer conditions,

suggests that residents' concerns about the impact on that intensified use are legitimate.

For those reasons, I don't feel able to speak in support of this application, and I can't

properly advocate this proposal.

The environmental officer who spoke brilliantly and answered all our questions actually used

the words, and I've now lost it, but she says, I'm not overly happy with the information

I've got.

And all this direction of travel causes me major concerns.

The other thing that the ward member says is a management plan should manage an acceptable development.

It should not be relied upon to make the relationship between a permanent commercial use

and the neighbouring residential properties acceptable.

There are people in this room, not me necessarily, who have a lot of experience of leisure and this type of operation.

If you're relying upon staff to go out there and say to residents or guests rather,

you must stop drinking, you must do this, it just doesn't happen, the reality.

And as for local residents having to email us or ring us

up to say there's been an infringement, that's after the

event.

They've been disturbed.

Their immunity has already been impacted upon.

So I personally will not be supporting this application on

the grounds that I'm not confident that we're dealing

with the impact on residential immunity in terms of loss of

light, overbearing impacts of noise, et cetera, et cetera.

And when it comes to it, I'll be making a counter proposal.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:30:10

Councillor Coleman.

Chair, the local member hasn't asked us to turn this down, neither have they asked us

to approve it.

It's a careful analysis.

It covers the same point as we have been discussing, noise in particular, but behaviour to a lesser

extent that we've been discussing for some time. And we know how can we ever

forget because of the amount of tension that Borton gets

nationally that we have a problem not only in Borton but particularly relevant

today with over tourism. And we think oh goodness we've got a problem. But the

first thing I would like to stress is I think it is fairly important the type of

over tourism that we've got a problem with in Borton isn't people at this hotel, it's

people picnicking on the green, leaving their litter on the green and generally making the

river an unpleasant place to be near while they take pictures of themselves and post

them on social media. These premises in contrast is the standard sort of Cockswold tourism

that we're used to. People drive up usually in rather nice cars and expect a nice meal

in a beautiful building and probably some very nice things to drink and probably quite

a big bill, but that's what they expect.

And this is where I would also like, I think Councillor Fowles did, to complement the support

of formerly worked in national landscape and so on, in the way they stressed how we regard

and how we treat the special nature of our listed building and its environments.

So for me at this stage I've got the impression that by 10 .15 there won't be

anybody outdoors and those buildings are far enough away to be similar to other

buildings that are near gardens or pubs which have nobody in after 10 .15. So if I

think of it not as being Bawton with its massive problems which are actually

slightly different people and slightly elsewhere this is not such a

The applicant has cooperated, the applicant has done pre -apps, thank you very much.

We've got a design which is modern, acceptable and as far as I could tell, given we had some heritage expert,

one of our speakers is a heritage expert, didn't cause any problems there and hasn't had problems around.

for our own heritage staff so I cannot see that we can sustain on planning

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:32:52

grounds a refusal. Are you proposing and that we accept the officer's

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:32:58

recommendation is that what you're saying here? Yes Mr Chair I'm waiting to

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:33:02

hear what others say. Not always do I do that but I am now. Okay, Councillor Evans.

Councillor Paul Evans - 2:33:08

I having heard a lot about the tension between planning and licencing

regimes here and lots of information very eloquently put by by officers on

this, I really don't see that turning this down will stop any concerns that

residents justifiably have about loss of civic inaneity or noise disturbance and there are

powers to deal with those as they currently exist.

The only thing I can see by turning this down would be to remove a building that seems quite

sympathetic to the listed building in which it sits and turns what looked a rather shabby

garden into something rather nicer.

and I was particularly encouraged by the supporter who rather eloquently told us about how this this

Pavilion would would enhance the character of the building

So no, I'm minded just to propose to propose that we accept the officers recommendations

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:34:12

Okay

Councillor Fowles

said it so

Councillor David Fowles - 2:34:20

Been to know where the supporter actually lived, but that's by the by

I'd like to propose that we refuse the officer's recommendation on the grounds of impact on

Amenity for the resident residential amenity. I'm sure we can expand on that

But that's the general thrust of what I want to say and I'll restate

Parish Council feel that way and the ward member although he didn't specifically say

That he was recommending or not recommending. He was pretty clear from what I read that he's not comfortable

And I have huge respect for him

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:34:51

Councillor Julia Judd - 2:34:57

Okay, any other comments? Councillor Judd. I'm unbelievably sympathetic to the

neighbours and residents who are next door to this site. It's an impossible

situation to be in. My thoughts are that a purpose -built building which has

got noise mitigation built into the building has to be better than a yurt.

Whatever happens from this site you are going to be subjected to noise from the

Dial House because the gardens are open till 1015. In my heart of hearts I

don't think by refusing this application it's going to save you from that. I mean

you are damned if you are damned if you give it damned if you don't but

a solid building has to be quieter than a yurt. So are you proposing to

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:35:58

second the application? Has it not been seconded? No.

I second that. Okay so councillor Judt has seconded it. Now does anyone else, so we've got two proposals on the table, one to accept.

It's one essential difference. Mine hasn't been seconded.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:36:18

We have actually changed this to the standard format used in the rest of the

council some years ago now and I hope our legal officer will agree. We used to

a bespoke system to be polite where we could have two different two opposing

it matters to propose as debate at the same time we now have the standard rules

of debate a motion is moved if there's a second or it's debated and voted on if

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:36:48

it fails then another motion is yes yes that's what I hope we can stick to that

yeah no we are going to stick to that I'm just asking if anyone else has any

Councillor David Fowles - 2:36:54

comments before we go to the boat yeah moment I haven't got a seconder so

That's the point I'm trying to make.

9 26/01098/FUL - Dial House Hotel, High Street, Bourton-on-the-Water

10 Tree Preservation Order - 26/00002 - The Folly, West End Gardens, Fairford

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:39:58

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:40:00

So our next item on the agenda is the tree preservation order, the folly, West End Gardens

Fairford. Our officer is Justin Hobbs. The ward member is Councillor Michael Vann. So

Officer - 2:40:19

can I ask you to do the presentation, Mr Hobbs?

Thank you, Chair. Usually at this point I say I have nothing further to add to my report,

up today. I'd like to draw members attention to an additional letter of support for the

TPO which is included at the additional pages. Apologies to committee, the letter of support

was submitted within the four week consultation period but for some reason it was overlooked

and it's been provided for you at the additional pages. So that means that there are now ten

written representations of support for the TPO and not knowing as stated in my

report. So now that's been cleared up as always to assist members I will try and

summarise the situation for you and then take any questions. So today you are

being asked to consider a TPO made to protect trees growing at the Folly West

End Gardens Fairford. You are being asked to consider whether to confirm the TPO

That is to make it permanent.

Whether to confirm the TPO subject to modifications, which is to still make the TPO permanent,

but you would remove selected trees from the TPO schedule, or you could decide not to confirm

the TPO.

My recommendation is that the TPO is confirmed as made.

This is the site.

The Folly is located on the Welsh way which is northwest of Fairford town

centre. I would describe as a 19th century dwelling with a large garden.

You can see there are trees growing around the edge of the the dwelling

along the frontage of the Welsh way which is along the southern boundary of

that picture. The red line running through the property is a public

right away. Just to give you some site background, the site was subject to a

full planning application for housing in 2024. This was refused and a subsequent

appeal was dismissed. It's important to note I think in for this matter that the

the appeal inspector stated in his decision that the trees along the

of the site, combining and combine in a meaningful and positive way to the

character and appearance of the area, regardless of whether they are

indigenous and their removal from site would be harmful to the character and

appearance of the area, while any replacement landscaping would take a

considerable time to mature. In March 2026, a permission in principle planning

application was granted consent for residential development comprising the

erection of a minimum of five and a maximum of six dwellings. This

application resulted in objections including from the town council and a

good deal of the objections centred on potential tree loss. So in response to

the application your tree officers visited site and undertook an assessment

to determine the expediency of making a TPO.

The assessment indicated three groups of trees

and one individual tree were worthy of a TPO.

So the TPO was subsequently made on April 8th and in accordance

with legislation and regulations relating to TPOs,

it was served on all interested parties.

So this slide shows the plan on the left is taken from the TPO plan.

It shows the trees that are protected.

You can see T1 is a single apple tree.

G1 is a group of three spruce trees.

G2 is a group of three western red cedars.

And, sorry, G2 is three western red cedars.

And G3 is six apples and a pear that straddle the path

and the public right of way through the site.

Now whenever a council or local authority makes a TPO, they must provide reasons for

making the TPO and we put this reasoning on a notice that is served to all the interested

party and that description there on the right is the reasoning for making this TPO.

The trees contribute significantly to public visual means in their locality.

The site is a potential development site and the TPO ensures the trees will be

fully considered in any future decisions that affect it.

Here's some pictures of the trees. The photos on the left I know we've got a

fantastic summer but there was a time when things were bleak and miserable I

think those the photos on the left probably taken back there taken in the

winter that they show the apple trees and the photos on the right G1 you can

quite clearly see the Norway spruce evergreen trees on the frontage and the

Western red cedars. So following the making of a TPO there's a statutory

four -week consultation period. The council has a legal obligation to thoroughly

consider objections and other representations made regarding the TPO

before deciding whether to confirm it or not.

And within the four -week consultation period,

10 representations supporting the TPO and five objections

to the TPO were submitted to the council.

I've summarised the supporting comments for you in my report,

but the comments all broadly support the TPO for amenity,

landscape, ecological reasons,

and to prevent preemptive tree removal

on what is a potential development site.

The full objection submissions can be found in appendices D to H of my report.

I have urged members to consider them fully. However, I will summarise them again.

The objection for in my interpretation to five categories. First category is the

amenity value of the trees. The objections question whether the trees

have sufficient amenity value to justify the making of a TPO. My response to that

is that in line with government guidance in relation to TPOs the council has

adopted and uses a structured methodology for assessing trees to

indicate whether it is expedient to make a TPO. This was used across the site. Not

all the trees were deemed to be worthy of the TPO. However, I am satisfied the

assessment has only protected those trees on site that bring in line with

government guidance a reasonable degree of public benefit in the present or the

future. I further believe that the level of public support for the TPO also

indicates public community value. The second grounds for objection falls as

regard to the ecological value of the trees. The claim was made they are low

ecological value in context of what is proposed. I'm an avaricologist, I'm not an

ecologist but the two worlds do overlap. I also have a working knowledge of

habitat management. I think it is reasonable to state the obvious and say

that all trees have some ecological value. Yes, most of the trees protected

are not native but the present situation is more ecologically beneficial in

comparison to a site with no trees. It's also important to note that unless the

trees are ancient or veteran the ecological value of a tree is not a

significant factor when deciding whether to make a TPO or not. Public amenity

value is the overriding factor. The third reason for objections relates to the

conditions of the trees. Claims were made that several have a limited remaining

contribution and or are a poor form. My response to that is I would accept that

some of the apple trees you can see from the from the from the photograph with

the apple trees in G3 could be classed as over mature trees however my assessment

indicates that their condition is not so poor as to render them useless as

amenity. You have to bear in mind that a public path runs between between the

trees there. All the other trees protected by the TPO were, in the opinion

of your tree officers, in normal condition with no significant risk

risk features and a realistic lifespan of at least 20 years. Objection 4 I've

categorises impact on the future of the site. The TPO have confirmed in its

current form would jeopardise a scheme designed to optimise the use of the land

and the imposition of the TPO presents a risk of devaluing my property. I'll come

back to responding to this because the reason four falls in with reason five

which is around the beneficial aspects of future site plans, are greater and they override

the value of the trees being protected by the TPO.

That statement has been made that a sympathetic removal of identified trees coupled with a

robust replacement planting scheme would deliver a stronger long -term landscape framework in

which trees, residents, buildings and public communities can thrive.

So my response to both these objections is that firstly the site is outside of

conservation area without a TPO in place regardless of well -meaning aspirations

these trees could be removed at any time. Perhaps a key point to

acknowledge is that the making and confirming of this TPO does not

explicitly prevent development rather it ensures that the trees are fully

considered in any future changes in the land use. The granting of a technical

details consent which usually follows on from a planning in principle

consent or the granting of a full planning permission may allow for the

trees protected by the TPO to be removed if this is required to implement the

permission. The council can again require conditions such as tree protection and

new tree planting on the back of those permissions. If a technical

details consent application or a full application is submitted that

satisfactorily mitigates or compensates for tree loss through new and

appropriate tree planting that secures long -term amenity benefits greater than

currently provided by the protected trees this may be viewed favourably from

an arboricultural perspective. So just to sum up by making these points, assessment,

public support and a planning and spectra decision indicates these trees

are worthy of TPO. The trees are not in a conservation area meaning without a

confirmed TPO they could be removed whether or not a future development

takes place or is granted on this site and the confirming of the TPO does not

aim to prevent development or appropriate arboricultural management.

The confirming of the TPO simply ensures the trees are fully considered in any

future land changes or management decisions that impact them. So my

conclusion therefore is that the TPO is confirmed as made. Thank you very much

for that comprehensive report.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:52:21

Now, can I ask the speakers to come forward?

So we have an objector, Tim Embly.

And Mrs. Petty, do you wish to be

accompanied by your supporter?

You're very welcome to bring him forward if you want to.

He'll be cheering you on from the back.

Mr. Emily, you've got three minutes and when you're ready.

Thank you very much, Chair and members.

Objector - 2:52:58

Thank you for allowing me to speak today.

I'm here to ask the committee to remove the tree preservation order at the Folly because

I believe it would provide a better overall outcome for Fairford and CDC wider strategic

objectives.

Our plan is to deliver five to six homes offsetting future housing requirements,

provide native mixed hedging with embedded fruiting and specimen trees

along the road boundary replacing G1 and G2. This would achieve a safer entrance

for vehicular and pedestrian traffic in Welsh Way. Visibility is currently for

15 to 20 metres maximum from the vehicle exiting the property due to the trees.

more than one -to -one replacement of fruit trees, G3 and T1, along the internal hedging using native species.

These enhancements will deliver long -term ecological benefits to the town and improve safety along Welsh Way.

I am a developer of the land, but this is much more personal than a development project.

I intend to live at the Folly with my family who play a very active role in the community.

My concern is that the TPO looks at the trees in isolation rather than considering the wider

planning opportunity.

CDC's strategic plan requires 19 ,000 new homes by 2043.

New local plan is explicit that this growth must be delivered while improving biodiversity

and environmental not at their expense.

A blanket tree protection on the proposed housing site sits awkwardly against these

ambitions.

Our professional team has undertaken significant work to understand the site and to develop

a carefully considered proposal.

The location of the buildings, access arrangements and public footpath all need to work together.

The trees in a private garden are not a public community.

The immunity is the footpath.

There is a better alternative.

Fairford's own neighbourhood plan under policy FN 11 valued hedgerows and trees specifically

recognise that where trees need to be removed, replaced planting should be provided wherever

possible with native species and at a ratio of at least two new trees for everyone removed.

That is exactly what I'm proposing. Rather than preserving trees that may be,

may have relatively short remaining life and designed and development around, I

have designed the developments around them for the next century, which can

create a long -term landscape and biodiverse strategy, removing unsuitable

and declining trees where professionally justified, replacing them with

appropriate native species, strengthening planting and improving habitat, enhancing

street scene and creating a better public footpath.

I would like the proposal of the tree preservation order to be removed.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

We're just in time.

Thank you.

Supporter - 2:56:13

Mr Petty, would you like to...

Okay.

Chairman, members of the committee, we're here today because we think this is actually

quite a simple issue. We're not against development and we do accept that

development is going to happen. But I don't think we should lose these trees

before we've even seen the final development proposals. That's what

concerns us. The council's tree officers have looked at these trees and decided

that they are worthy of protection. They say they are locally prominent. They can

be seen from Welsh Way and from the public footpath. They make a contribution

to the appearance of this part of Fairford. They're part of what people actually see

when they come into Fairford from that boot. We've read the objections, we understood

the arguments that some of the trees aren't perfect, some of them are getting quite old,

and that new planting could eventually provide a better landscape. But that's an argument

for considering the trees properly, not for removing their protection now. We don't

yet know what the final development will look like. We don't exactly know what trees are

going to be planted or what trees will need to be removed. We don't know what replacement

planting is actually planned. So why remove the protection before these decisions have

been made? The tree protection order doesn't prevent development. It doesn't say that these

trees can never be removed. It just means if someone wants to do so, they have to make

the case for doing so. If the eventual development really does need some of these trees to be

removed, then let the developer demonstrate why. Let the council look at the layout, look

at the landscaping, look at the replacement planting and then make an informed decision.

But once these trees are removed, that's it. You can plant new ones of course, but you

plant a sapling and expect it to look like a mature tree a few years later. The

council told us that the detailed impact on the trees will be considered at the

technical details stage. So we're not being asked today to decide whether

these trees should ultimately stay or go, we're being asked whether they deserve

to be protected while that decision is being made. So the council's tree

officers have said yes they are worthy of being protected and we agree with

them, because this isn't about being anti -development, we're not. But it's about getting the balance

right. Fairford needs new houses, yes it does, but we also need to protect the things that

make Fairford the place that people want to live in. Getting the balance right. Once we've

removed mature trees, they can't be put back. So our message to the committee is simple,

confirm the tree preservation order, and if in the end removing some of them is necessary,

Let's do so in the light of the decisions and information that come forward.

If the replacement planting will give Fairford a better landscape,

then the council can make that decision when the planning comes forward.

Thank you.

Thank you. Very good timing. Well done.

Thank you very much to both of you.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:59:33

Julia Gibson, Officer - 2:59:44

Do believe that councillor van is not able to be with us today has sent something

So I have a statement from and council van he says I am the water member and I'm afraid I cannot be here today

I have carefully considered all the papers provided by the committee and

agree the officers recommendation that planning and licencing committee

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:00:04

resolves to confirm the TPO as made. That was a very brief into the point. I can

I just remind you that we do have one further late page page have you all had

a chance to look at that? Does anyone would need a bit more time to look at

No? Okay. Councillor... we're on to questions now.

Councillor David Fowles - 3:00:28

Councillor Fowles and then Councillor In. I hope this comes out the right way

Chairman but my understanding is Councillor van does actually live on

that road if I remember correctly. Yes so these trees are obviously right in front

of him so does that... so he's making his comments in the light of that I just

think we as a committee ought to know that that's where he lives. Yeah I mean

That's fine. I'm just making the point.

He's not taking part in the debate.

The other point I need to make is that the objective Tim Ebley and I do know Tim, so

I just said hello. Sorry, we didn't talk, but I just thought I ought to have mentioned

that. I didn't realise that he was down there, but it won't influence my decision. I just

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:01:11

want to let you know if I may have that minuted. Thank you.

Councillor Nikki Ind - 3:01:17

Councillor Ind. Thank you chair and firstly thank you Justin for such a

comprehensive report and update. I'm just confirming my understanding of this and

my understanding this correctly. So this will not prevent any

development in the future but it allows us to have a stronger position as a

TPO to be removed or work on a TPO take place. We can insist on a replacement tree. If it

hasn't got any protection, we can't insist on anything. That's correct, isn't it?

Officer - 3:01:59

It does provide us with a stronger position to have protected trees on site, yes. But

with any development on that site we would still probably we would still

insist on new tree planting because that's part of our policies and power

and PPR but yes having a TPO on site does in fully ensure that they are

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:02:23

considered in any future

Councillor David Fowles - 3:02:28

I'm sorry a council of Fowls then council bridges sorry thank you okay

The first question is, this site which was refused, went to appeal, dismissed and now

it has that wonderful PIP which we all enjoy.

So is this site included in the allocation for Fairford?

Do you happen to know Harrison?

I don't know off the top of my head.

I can say it's got...

Okay, that's a question I want to ask.

More importantly, a lot of the objectives to there being a TPO

place quite a lot of value in the ecological value

of the trees, i .e. that they're not necessarily a great species.

Whereas in your report on page 175,

you say all trees have some ecological value.

Unless trees being considered for a TPO are ancient

or veteran trees, the ecological value of trees

is not a primary factor when considering expediency.

So do we basically, a lot of comments about objecting to your recommendation

praise quite a lot of stress on the fact that the trees come down better trees,

ecologically trees would be put, we should disregard that, should we?

Officer - 3:03:42

Is that what you're saying?

It shouldn't be disregarded totally, but government guidance is clear

that the ecological value of trees unless they are ancient or veteran because ancient

or veteran trees have huge ecological value.

It's not an overriding.

It is a factor but it is not the overriding factor when you decide whether to make a tree

preservation order or not.

The overriding factor is public amenity value, visual landscape value.

that's so you shouldn't disregard it but it's not as an important factor as

visual immunity.

Councillor Nick Bridges - 3:04:21

Councillor Bridges. You made an important distinction between saplings and mature

Officer - 3:04:37

trees. How long would a red cedar take to become mature? As in all trees it depends

on where they're growing, the conditions, but looking at those trees, I'm saying they

are reaching maturity. They are non -native trees in their native environment. They will

Councillor Nick Bridges - 3:04:50

grow a lot bigger, but they are reaching maturity.

My question really was, if you planted a new sapling 20 feet away from the current one,

Officer - 3:05:01

how long would it take for that sapling to become a mature tree?

If you went like for like, that's going to take 40, 50 years to get to that size.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:05:12

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 3:05:15

Councillor Coleman.

Chair, yes, I wondered if our obstacle comment on page 192, the second paragraph, which begins

with a very worrying phrase, red cedar is very similar to leylandy. It tells us it's

got several drawbacks. It's a poor choice of gardens, public areas as well. Wood contains

oils and phenolic compounds that create allelopathic effects, inhibiting the growth of plants,

disrupting the balance of a system. I mean, there's no end to the sins of these trees.

Do we have a policy specifically to protect our population against red cedars?

Officer - 3:06:00

Again, they are evergreen so they will be high water demanding species.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

At the moment I'm satisfied to say that they are a nice group of trees growing

in the current setting, they're suited to that setting.

They're reasonable.

You wouldn't want one six foot from your house,

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:06:30

I have to admit that, yes.

Any more questions for clarity?

In that case, we're going to move on to the debate.

Anyone with a comment?

Yes, please.

Councillor David Fowles - 3:06:40

Can I just add one more question?

OK, Councillor Fowles.

Important one.

It's getting to the case officer.

Where he talks, this whole issue about the site

It's got planning in principle and the comment that was made by Councillor

Rind about well that doesn't stop development does it which is detailed on

page 176. Under 454 you say if a site with an extended permission in principle

permission contains TPO trees the applicant must still address tree

impacts at the technical details consent stage. Could you just explain what that

actually means. So if we support your recommendation and the site is progressed in terms of a site

for development, I just need to get into my head what the applicant needs to do to go,

you know, clearly he can't go ahead, he's saying he's got issues with these trees and

this could prevent development. I'm just trying to get my head around about what level of

protection this gives and how the applicant would then, I suppose, ask for the trees to

be removed and replaced. So I don't quite understand what technical details consent

means.

So technical details consent is the follow -up to the permission in principle. So once you've

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 3:07:59

had permission in principle granted, the second step is then your technical details consent,

a bit like when you have outline consent granted, your second step is your reserve matters application.

So technical details consent is the equivalent of your reserve matters application in the permission and principle process

So I think I set out in five four point five point four

There's two options if you want to do works to remove those trees

The first is you apply to do works with TPO tree and separately or as part of the technical details consent

They could set out works to those trees whether that's removable or you know creating or anything else

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:08:35

And that would be considered as part of that padding application process. So there's two routes they could potentially go down

Councillor Julia Judd - 3:08:45

Thank you. Any comments? Yes please. Councillor Judge. Thank you, Chair. Well I feel a very

very strong instinct not to cut down trees, absolutely based on the fact that

it would take 40 years for another terrible sinning red seeded tree to grow.

But more to the point, I think when you've got the endorsement of a

extremely experienced and capable tree officer,

followed up by an independent, well, you know,

nothing to do with Cotswold District Council,

the planning inspector, followed up by local people

who appreciate the amenity value of the trees.

This is to support the amenity of Fairford,

a Cotswold market town, which is much loved.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:09:41

So I propose that we support the officer's recommendation to grant the TPO.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:09:44

Councillor Bridges.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:09:49

Can I say anything more than that or just say that you second it?

Councillor David Fowles - 3:09:56

You don't have to say anything else.

Not only does Councillor van live where he lives.

My parents lived just behind in Saxon Way and sadly both died in that house.

Not in the house but died while they were in Fairford.

And so I'm very familiar with that road coming in from Honeycun Lees.

And the trees have always struck me.

I don't look at their ecological value.

I don't know one value from another but they are mature trees.

And the problem with Fairford is there's so much new development there

and particularly at that end of Fairford.

And yes, some of those sites are beginning to mature with the trees and planting that's gone there.

It's great to be around long enough to see some of the developments that we gave permission to 10, 15 years ago,

where vegetation is starting to grow.

But I always thought that that entrance into Fairford is particularly attractive.

And I personally quite like those trees.

but I too feel exactly the way that Julia feels about about cutting down trees and I feel

uncomfortable with it but I am conscious of the fact there's a site there that could be

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:11:14

important site for fuchsia development so I'm in a really difficult position I'm afraid.

Councillor Nick Bridges - 3:11:16

Any other comments? Councillor End.

Councillor Nikki Ind - 3:11:20

Thank you chair. Yeah no the only comment I make is I think I'm in support of maintaining the TPO

because I don't want to see trees cut down. My comment is that it's very difficult with these

planning in principle applications because we have no idea where these houses are going to be

Positioned how it's up to a certain number. How many is it? So I think actually without that detailed information

It's it's too late

Once they've gone if it's not in a conservation area and tomorrow someone can go out there with a chainsaw and take them out

Then I'm really against that

I think if we were looking at something where we could see where the houses were positioned

Where the entrance was going to be that would be a completely different storey

Which is why I think I made the point that, you know, there has to be mitigation, whether that's a new tree planted or series of trees planted, if there's a true TPO tree removed at some point.

So yeah, I just feel like you're being asked, we're being, this is a really important bout and braces, I think, because it'd be very easy.

Because once they're gone, and I've seen that happen years ago, nearby where I live, where some houses were being done and they were trying to get a TPO on and it was left on a desk.

and that you know the next day it was gone and so no I would absolutely

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:12:48

support maintaining the tree preservation order until we know where

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 3:12:52

we are. Councillor Conlon. Very briefly I hope we're getting to a stage of the

meeting with this item and the one following it both reflect ways in which

government of a colour always ends up with a wrong idea because it takes so

long to deal with a problem that when they think they're dealing with it it's

already been sorted in the renewed problems. Example here has been

identified as permission in principle. I'm sure we would have had a smoother

run for this applicant seeking quite fairly to develop property on the edge

of the town. If the permission in principle had never been invented, much

smoother path and in our next agenda item we'll see something very similar

where the government thinks we are the problem and it turns out by data now shows we are

not but we are going to have to mess up and do what they have said with regard to planning

applications in a very different way. So I am just reminded therefore of Ronald Reagan's

famous statement, not often I quote Ronald Reagan but he turns out to be a decent bloke

compared with what they have had in recent years. He said one of the worst things you

can ever hear, one of the worst things you can ever hear is the phrase I am from the

government I'm here to help and that certainly applies to several colours of

government I've lived under so yes I'm very firmly in favour of thank you

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:14:16

Councillor Paul Evans - 3:14:21

councillor Evans council bridges thank you I'm comforted by the phrase that

counsellor induced which was belt and braces I can see that this doesn't

prevent development of what should be a site that is available for development

but it means that somebody can't go and cut the trees down just like that

because they are protected until we'd consider their future and their

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:14:43

replacement as part of the planning process so I would support the

Councillor Nick Bridges - 3:14:46

application. Councillor Bridges did you have another thing you want to say? I was simply going to

wish the the new owner of that land if it goes ahead I love happiness there we

haven't said you can't have what you want we've just said that we want to

have a little bit more say. So belt and braces it is. Okay we'll move to the

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:15:06

vote but just say to Mr. Emberley you're of course when you bring forward your

technical details if you need to remove the trees we will look at that again. But

meanwhile we're going to the vote which is to accept the officer's recommendation

for the tree preservation order at the Foley West End Gardens, Fairford.

It's not coming up on the screen.

Perfect. So we've got seven in favour and one abstention. So that tree preservation

order is confirmed. Thank you.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:15:58

So we move on to our next agenda item which is to look at the recommendations

from the Constitution Working Group about the national scheme of delegation

for planning functions. This is a scrutiny item only. It will be minuted, so our

comments will be minuted, but we don't have to vote on it. So Simon Harper is

Officer - 3:16:32

going to kindly present for us. Yeah, thank you, Chair. I'm mindful that this is not

particularly popular report. It sets out changes to the planning protocol and to

the non -executive scheme of officer delegation to reflect the new planning

national scheme of delegation. The Constitution Working Group has met on a

both present when when it was looked at along with Councillor Watson. The changes

will be effective from the 31st of October so that means all councils

across the country have got to implement these changes by that date. Applications

will be categorised into two types, Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 and I've set

those out in section three of the report.

In terms of the planning protocol, the changes include a reference to something

called the Gateway Test and that requires a nominated member, a nominated

officer to determine the outcome of referrals and the expectation is that

would normally be the chair of the committee and the head of the head of

planning and all referrals and outcomes of Gateway Review meetings will be

reported to this committee on at least a quarterly basis so you'll see how that

how that operates some good news amongst the amongst the proposals which I don't

think you'll be that pleased about, but there will be a simpler process for

callings and referrals. You'll just have an email. You won't have to use the

system to do it, okay? So that would be a simpler process and I've put the email

address in the in the report. And another issue that came up in the protocol at

the moment it says if there is an equality of vote to the committee and I

know this is a very rare event then an application can get referred to council

that can't happen now so what will happen is that the chair will have a

cast and vote okay and then in terms of communications around the new national

Scheme of Delegation, Harrison's going to be running a member briefing that will be

open to all members ahead of the implementation on the 31st of October

and will also be putting some information out to parish and town councils. So you're

not being expected, as the Chair said, to make a recommendation to council on this

but it will go to Council on the 23rd of September.

So it's here for your comments and for you to note.

Thank you, Chair.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:20:10

Okay, so we're open now for questions and debate.

Councillor David Fowles - 3:20:18

Obviously, we're not gonna have to vote on this,

so we can perhaps be a little bit freer.

questions because this is a dictat from government.

I was on the working group as I think with you Patrick.

So I haven't got any questions other than do we have any option

other than just to accept this.

But when it comes to comments, I've certainly got some comments

in relation to this government.

Just that you didn't work in the group, the rest is lovely.

So yeah, now we have other people who can ask questions.

Yeah, yeah, so I'm just saying the question I was asking Harrison and Simon is what's the point given it's a government diktat, you know, what's the point of asking questions?

So that we understand.

Okay, fine.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:21:05

Councillor Ray Brassington - 3:21:07

Okay, Councillor Brasington, fire away.

Please could you clarify big so I'm a little bit confused normally when we were talking about amending a protocol something the

amendments are in red

But here we've got the met. We've got red and we've also got red which is being crossed out, so I'm a bit confused on that I

Officer - 3:21:29

Think what's happened there is it's been through a succession of changes to get to the right place, so

We've got I think that's true isn't it we've been through

It's been through a you know, there is a lot I know there is a lot of red that's crossed out in it

I think that's just the track changes to show what's been removed

I think it just I think it is actually it's actually the bits that have come out

Are in red and then have been crossed through. Yeah, that's right, isn't it? So I've just um tried work

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:22:03

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:22:08

Councillor Nick Bridges - 3:22:10

Have you got a question?

Are we allowed to suggest the decision is not made by the chair of this committee, but

by the ward member as well as the chair?

Because at the moment it is just being made by the two of you, and if I have a problem

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:22:31

in my ward, I am not being consulted.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 3:22:37

So obviously as part of, you'd still have the opportunity to call in an application

that's scheduled to or not call in but request this is referred to the Gateway Review Panel

or meeting. However the government legislation is very clear that the Gateway Review Panel

must consist of two people which is the nominated officer and nominated member so that is imposed

Councillor Nick Bridges - 3:22:55

on us by the government so we have to adopt it in that way.

because I called in a decision in my ward and suddenly it had been decided without me being asked.

I was a bit miffed by that.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:23:07

The way the review panel works is we look at your reasons for call -in.

It's not that we don't take any notice of what you've said.

We look at your reasons for call -in and we compare it.

We discuss it with the planning officer

and quite often the planning officer will have already addressed the concerns that you have.

If we feel that those concerns have been addressed in the officer's report, then we won't bring

it to committee.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 3:23:33

Harrison, do you want to say anything else about that?

Current review panel is looking at whether it's a valid call in reason, is what the Constitution

says.

That now gets changed.

So the government have introduced what they call the gateway test, which has to be satisfied

in order for a Schedule II application to come before planning committee.

That is set out in the planning protocol, but just for ease.

It's the schedule application must raise one or more issue of economic social

environmental significance to local area or one or more significant planning

matters having regard to the development plan and any other material

considerations. There is some additional guidance from the government albeit not

very much. It's unfortunately one of those things that will get tested by

judicial review and tests and there'll be further clarity as it goes along but

that's the test that the government have set out that any schedule 2 application

must pass in order to come to Planning Committee which is determined by the

Gateway Review meeting which is as I said the nominated officer and nominated

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:24:28

member. That is what has been sent out as the requirements.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 3:24:34

Councillor Coleman did you have something you wanted to ask? Well despite

having been on the Working Party and also having been briefed about the

and general intentions when I was on a training course for the one I was

briefly chair of planning a vice -chair of planning I'm still not absolutely

clear because I've had as I may have repeated a few times the challenge that

things applications I wish to allow through committee debate are being

refused without coming before the committee and I can't see that that's

going to change. So even though at least two of them have been one on appeal since, so

I always feel a bit miffed about that, that we could have saved going to appeal if we'd

been able to come at least debate it here, what about a chance? Now that scenario has

not changed, has it? For instance, the, we'll call them the gin makers near Birdlip who

have now got permission after being refused by us, and I wanted them to have permission

in the first place and indeed Stranhouse Hotel, which I think now has won two appeals.

One on the pergola and one on the other.

But all of that is wasting people's time and money.

The government thinks it's going to do something about it and this doesn't do anything about

it.

It doesn't make an exception where you want to permit something because the government

– so it's – I'm just grateful that we've got strategic officers, despite the

I've just made, we'll be able to manage our way through this with understanding and we'll

continue to have a very small number on average of applications per meeting.

The government thinks we're taking everything, councillors are taking everything to run committee

meetings, turning everything down and delaying things.

The vast majority of planning committees long ago learnt not to do that but of course now

that we've all learnt not to do it, the government's bringing in an unnecessary dicta.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:26:29

So once I kind of agree with David.

No, I didn't see a question in there, but never mind.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 3:26:35

Councillor Breslington.

I have a question on the government also.

Yes.

As an example, the application we just discussed for the supermarket,

I assume that would only go to committee if the two of you agreed it would.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:26:48

Yes.

Councillor David Fowles - 3:26:51

Councillor Fowles.

Do you want to comment now?

This is a question.

Okay.

It's a very valid question, all right?

11 National Scheme of Delegation (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions Regulations 2026)

Okay. When this came out, I took the view that this was a precursor to LGR and an attempt

to simplify the process and further take decisions away from us as elected members. And it's

not far off us as a planning committee disappearing altogether, frankly. And I want the question

I'm asking Harrison is in the light of the decision to pause LGR, have we asked the question

whether this is going ahead because it seems to me that the two are related.

When I come to comments, but have we asked the question?

No, because the national scheme of delegation applies to the country.

It seems to me that it would be useful to see if we could ask the question, in the light

of LGR being paused, is this still going ahead?

The national scheme of delegation applies nationally, so it applies to councils that

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 3:27:48

are already unitary.

It applies to districts and counties equally.

It's the same applied to all councils.

So there was only 13 councils currently go or 13 counties going through LGR across the entire country

So I don't see them as linked personally

I'm so no we haven't asked the question and even so the legislation sets are very clear

It must be in place by the 31st of October. There wouldn't be time regardless

Councillor Paul Evans - 3:28:14

Okay, I can't see Evans

The only thing I just wanted to make was a quick observation that on the one hand

we have this government telling us that they want decisions to be made locally

because they're all in favour of devolving stuff and at the same time

they give us this which absolutely takes away from us making decisions locally

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:28:35

but that's it. Okay comments we'll move on to comments now I know everyone wants

Councillor David Fowles - 3:28:41

to comment. Councillor Fowls, far away. I've had it up to here with this

government interfering with what we do locally in terms of democracy and the

planning process. I was uncomfortable with the scheme before where we had a

planning review panel because I remember the days where if a community felt

strongly about it you could take it to committee and the meetings that I've

most enjoyed here under your chairmanship are the ones like today

where we've had a good healthy debate. It seems that I've been a lone voice on a

couple of them, but that's by the by.

But it's been a good, positive debate locally with local

knowledge, et cetera.

And for me, I've suffered too from some of the things that

have happened with the planning review panel.

But equally, I've had some stuff go through planning review,

gone to committee, and decisions have been taken.

And I've got huge respect for the people on that

planning review panel.

For it now to be just two people,

I think that puts a huge pressure on those

two individuals.

And I would like to send a resounding message to the

which is unprintable, but you know I've had it up to here. You know we've just

wasted millions of pounds on LGR whether pause means it's going to stop and I

just wish to God that he just left us alone to run our own affairs and I think

we've got an excellent process. I just want to get this out of we've got

excellent planning process, we've got excellent officers, we've had a wonderful

debate today with good contributions from officers across the panel and I

enjoy that. It's one of the main reasons I became a Councillor, to serve on this

committee and I think that's been taken away from us and I think it's disgusting.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:30:24

I hope that's minuted. Thank you. Okay, who else would like to comment?

Well, I'd like to agree with that. Yes.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 3:30:34

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:30:37

It's taking away local democracy and I think it's appalling.

Anyone else that I can comment as well?

So I was at my town council planning meeting last night and they said to me, why when we

make an objection to a planning, they're very good at the Stowtown council, they look very

thoroughly at each planning committee that comes before them and they said why when we

put an objection, does nobody ever take any notice of us?

And I assured them that our planning officers

do read every objection and take notice of it.

But I said, your fallback position

is you can ask me as your board member

if there's something that you really think needs further

scrutiny.

But now that's not going to happen, because most

of the applications we get are small buildings or extensions

or what have you, where I personally

won't be able to bring them.

And I'm sure, as we all said, Councillor Fowle,

it's one of our, I feel it's one of our crucial things

that we do as elected members is to deal with the planning side

of things, and to have that taken away from us is extremely

anti -democratic.

It's all back, you know, central government

and not local government.

And in this, in the last few months

in this very planning committee,

we have seen ourselves overturn officers' recommendations,

which have been proved to be correct.

There was the one, I think it was the listed building one,

so it would probably have come to us anyhow,

the barn in Bybury, where we got a further high -risk report

because of our intervention.

And then the one in Kyneton, do you remember,

where we didn't allow that house to be built on the site

of the old stables, we overturned the officers'

recommendation and that was confirmed by the planning

inspector to also dismiss it on appeal.

So we do make good decisions sometimes and those decisions

Councillor David Fowles - 3:32:38

will no longer be available to us because we won't be allowed

to bring them.

There have been a number of occasions where applications

have come here.

I can think of Sotherup and Thyme where had lots of local

residents getting very, very upset.

They felt that this was like the Supreme Court.

It came, they had a site, we had a site visit.

It came to committee.

it was debated and the officers recommendation was approved.

And whilst they didn't like it, they accepted it because they felt that there had been a

democratic process, the whole thing had gone through.

So it's not just a case of disagreeing with officers recommendations, it's quite often

agreeing and supporting officers recommendations.

And I think we've been in a really good place under your chair and your predecessor chair,

far better than I can remember, with some excellent officers and I think they should

just butt out government and they're incompetent as a government. Incompetent.

Councillor Julia Judd - 3:33:33

Yeah, Councillor Judd. Just very quickly, I'm always brief, but I just feel that as

a planning committee we are we are overviewing scrutiny of for our county

for the places we love, the places we come from, without the knowledge that we

have our wards and we are the policemen. We are the policemen with the big

hearts for the places we love. The officers are the brains. We are the heart

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:34:02

Councillor Nikki Ind - 3:34:09

of planning. Anyone else want to make Councillor in to? Similarly to Councillor

Jed that's exactly right with the eyes and ears for our residents in our wards

and our towns and our villages and I do worry for what it means for our

residents because as Councillor Fowles has said our residents come to us and if

even if a planning permission comes here and it might not go their way they can

see the process and I think this starts to look very much like it's all behind

closed doors decisions are made without anyone could you know even if there's

been a consultation, it just feels inaccessible I suppose for people and it will be very difficult

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:34:53

for them to understand.

That last application, I know you ticked me off, but when they left and people said thank

Councillor David Fowles - 3:35:05

you, that last application was a really good debate because what Julia said, what Paul

said, a number of you said, about, you know, this is better than a tepee.

It was a good healthy debate and those people were unhappy but they

accepted it and had been through a process and that was it. Okay? And no better

example than Dial House for me. But that's... It was transparent.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 3:35:29

Can you switch off? Councillor Coleman. I've just come up with a suggestion or even

That may help.

This has to go through the council as well, doesn't it?

And at the moment we've got a very thorough, very clearly tracked set of changes involving

red ink, blue ink and black ink and a lot of very sensible crossing out.

At one point you do have to read it to jump down two lines.

But perhaps when it goes to council, in addition to the track changes, I think are important

for transparency.

transparency, just because it's transparent doesn't mean it's easy to follow. If we could

have the new version, probably in black I think, of the three colours, added perhaps

in front of it as the first part with the track changes as the second, and that may

assist those of our colleagues who aren't planning, whatever the word is, fanatics,

planning nerds to be reassured that whilst there are many issues which we've already

raised, the thing when you've got it, in short, isn't that complicated. That's about the only

good thing you can say about it, isn't it?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:36:46

I should say, I mean, obviously the governments are trying to make sure that planning applications

get pushed through more quickly. I would have said this is the basic reason, but of course

we do sometimes overturn a recommendation to refuse,

in which case more things are getting built.

I can think of several times when we've done that.

So there we go.

Councillor David Fowles - 3:37:11

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:37:14

I don't know quite what's going to happen.

Officer - 3:37:19

So your views will be in the minutes of this meeting?

Councillor David Fowles - 3:37:21

So it'll be on the public record.

Will they actually be beyond the wonderful statement it's been through planning?

Will we be summarising what this committee said okay for the benefit of full council?

Just as Councillor Coleman said we're more planning nerds than the rest of the council

but I personally would like to have some kind of

summary or that page of the minute that extract shared with full council so they know exactly how we feel.

how this is going to be presented? Council? Are you going to present it? No it will be the leader as the chair of the

constitution working group that will present it but there's no reason why we

can't include something in the report that makes clear your views as a

committee. I mean... We could put that in the report. I could ask... Could I be the seconder? If I ask

Councillor Efremi, then I can clearly articulate the views of the Planning Committee.

Will you speak on behalf of us?

If that's acceptable to the rest of you, I'll ask Councillor Efremi if I can speak to him.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 3:38:34

It's only just for my own view, Chair, it's only just acceptable because there is such

a thing as wasted breath. And whilst it's fair to point the finger at this government

and the way they're dealing with it,

behind them are a load of civil servants,

and if the other lot were in power,

they'd be doing something very similar

because that's been the general trajectory

of all governments of all colours

in their attitude to councils over the last 30 years.

Most of them have said councils are holding stuff up.

We're gonna move the blockage.

I just feel, well, obviously I've been ugly.

My voice is wasting, I'm wasting my breath now,

but I think you could say the planning committee

were unanimous in their disappointment.

Or reservations, that's the word.

Reservations is used by civil service

when a prime minister uses a profanity.

They say the prime minister expressed reservations.

I was making a comment about the colour of this government.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:39:43

I will close the floor.

Councillor Paul Evans - 3:39:50

Let's close on that note.

Maybe so, yes.

Could I make a request?

For full Council, is it possible just to have a kind of short summary of the key things

that have changed?

So what has been taken away?

If it is there, that is great.

I just have not found it.

Maybe it needs to be a bit simpler for me.

I don't know.

The national scheme of delegation, item 3, lists 3 -1, 3 -2, 3 -3, 3 -4, 3 -5, that spells

it all out.

What I was hoping for was a house of change, because I'm just about getting my head around

planning as it was, and now I've got to get my head around planning as it's going to be.

If we could just do a short summary of the key changes, that would be very helpful.

Can we just leave it to the officers and to the chairman?

Yeah, that's fine.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 3:40:35

Finally, before we wrap up, we did note quickly that we will be doing, including something

in the parish and town council news letters we mentioned, and there will be a member's

briefing on the new procedure near the time when it comes to full place. But do keep an

Councillor Dilys Neill - 3:40:51

eye out for that and we'll make sure that gets carried out.

Thank you.

12 Sites Inspection Briefing

Okay, I think we've nearly come to the end of the meeting now.

There would be a site inspection briefing on the 7th of October if required.

At the moment we don't have anything.

The 7th of October if required.

13 Licensing Sub-Committee

I don't think we've got anything at the moment have we?

And a licencing subcommittee on the 24th of September if required.

No that one's been cancelled but I have a confirmation that we will need one for

the 22nd of October and that is a taxi hearing.

Anyone else to say anything to this?

Yeah, yeah.

Webcast Finished - 3:41:43

And the next council meeting is Wednesday October the 14th and I declare the meeting closed.

Please provide any feedback/comments relating to the live webcast here. Any feedback submitted will be received to the Democratic Services team.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hCaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Cotswold District Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

There are currently no votes to display

Interactive webcast player

Planning and Licensing CommitteeWednesday, 9th September 2026 at 2:00pm

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:00:00

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:02:06

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:02:14

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:02:26

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:02:38

Councillor Nikki Ind - 0:02:43

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:02:50

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:03:00

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:03:07

Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:03:19

Legal Services - 0:03:25

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:03:31

Officer - 0:03:35

Officer - 0:03:42

Officer - 0:03:50

Officer - 0:03:58

1 Apologies

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:04

2 Substitute Members

Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:04:11

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:22

3 Declarations of Interest

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:33

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:04:35

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:57

Councillor David Fowles - 0:05:03

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:05:22

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:05:30

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:05:44

Legal Services - 0:05:50

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:05:56

4 Minutes

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:06:15

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:06:42

5 Chair's Announcements

Councillor David Fowles - 0:07:06

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:08:24

6 Public questions

7 Member questions

Schedule of Applications

8 25/03800/FUL - Bourton Industrial Park, Bourton-on-the-Water

Officer - 0:09:13

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:11:20

Officer - 0:11:29

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:18:34

Town/Parish Council - 0:19:25

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:20:42

Applicant/Agent - 0:20:55

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:23:53

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:24:31

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:25:07

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:25:11

Councillor David Fowles - 0:25:59

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:26:48

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:26:54

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:27:30

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:27:33

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:28:26

Officer - 0:28:45

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:29:55

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:30:01

Officer - 0:30:19

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:30:51

Officer - 0:31:01

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:31:14

Officer - 0:31:33

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:31:47

Officer - 0:32:24

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:32:40

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:32:42

Officer - 0:33:02

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:33:36

Officer - 0:33:53

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:34:21

Officer - 0:34:31

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:35:03

Officer - 0:35:27

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:36:16

Planning and Licensing Committee
Wednesday, 9th September 2026 at 2:00pm