Planning and Licensing Committee - Wednesday 14 October 2026, 2:00pm

Planning and Licensing Committee
Wednesday, 14th October 2026 at 2:00pm

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

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

1 Apologies

Share this agenda point

Julia Gibson, Officer
Councillor Ian Watson

3 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

4 Minutes

Share this agenda point

Minutes , 09/09/2026 Planning and Licensing Committee

Julia Gibson, Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
04. Minutes of a Planning Committee held on 7 September 2026
Status: Ended
Councillor Ian Watson

5 Chair's Announcements

Share this agenda point

Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Julia Judd
Officer
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Ian Watson

Schedule of Applications

Share this agenda point

Planning & Licensing Committee - 14.10.2026 - Index of Applications

8 25/02572/FUL - Land West of Bath Road, Tetbury

Share this agenda point

Officer
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles
Legal Services
Objector
Applicant/Agent
Supporter
Applicant/Agent
Applicant/Agent
Ward Member
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Paul Evans
Officer
Councillor Paul Evans
Officer
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Nick Bridges
Officer
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Officer
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Officer
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Daryl Corps
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Ian Watson
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Ian Watson
08. 25/02572/FUL Land West of Bath Road, Tetbury - PERMIT (as amended)
Status: In progress
08. 25/02572/FUL Land West of Bath Road, Tetbury - PERMIT (as amended)
Status: Ended

9 25/02389/PROWOR - Land West of Worwell Farmhouse, Tetbury

Share this agenda point

Councillor Ian Watson
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Applicant/Agent
Supporter
Councillor Ian Watson
Ward Member
Ward Member
Councillor Ian Watson
09. 25/02389/PROWOR Land West of Worwell Farmhouse, Tetbury - CONFIRM
Status: In progress
09. 25/02389/PROWOR Land West of Worwell Farmhouse, Tetbury - CONFIRM
Status: Ended

10 26/00215/PROWOR - Moorhouse, Brimpsfield

Share this agenda point

Councillor Ian Watson
Officer

11 26/02089/FUL - The Triangle, Donnington, Moreton-In-Marsh

Share this agenda point

Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Objector
Objector
Objector
Councillor Ian Watson
Applicant/Agent
Ward Member
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Julia Judd
Officer
Councillor Julia Judd
Officer
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Officer
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Daryl Corps
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Nick Bridges
Officer
Councillor Paul Evans
Officer
Councillor Julia Judd
Officer
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Michael Vann
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Ian Watson
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Julia Judd
Legal Services
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Ian Watson
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Ian Watson
11. 26/02089/FUL The Triangle, Donnington - PERMIT
Status: In progress
11. 26/02089/FUL The Triangle, Donnington - PERMIT
Status: Ended
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Paul Evans
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Ian Watson
11. 26/02089/FUL The Triangle, Donnington - REFUSE
Status: In progress
11. 26/02089/FUL The Triangle, Donnington - REFUSE
Status: Ended

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 Ian Watson - 0:00:00

on today, the 14th of October.

I'd like to welcome members, members of the public,

including those watching online at home.

Today we'll be using electronic voting.

That means members have got a little pad in front of them

and their vote will be visible on the screens

that you can see around us.

I would ask members of the public not to approach committee members and not to interrupt the

proceedings as we go along. We are not expecting a fire alarm this afternoon. If there is any

kind of emergency, please take the lead from officers. And just as an advice for members

of the public who are speaking, you are allowed three minutes.

That will be timed.

And after three minutes, we'll ask you to wind up.

For ward members who will speak, the time allowance is five minutes.

At that point, I'd like to make some introductions.

First of all, of members, Daryl, if I can start with you,

and we'll go around the table.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:01:26

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:01:28

Yes, thank you, Chair. I'm Daryl Core and I'm a district councillor for Mortimer Marsh

West in the North Costles.

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:01:36

Michael Van, Fairford North.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:01:41

I'm David Fowles. I'm the councillor for the Cong Valley, which runs from Fostway to Lecherlade.

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:01:51

Hello, I am Councillor Paul Edmonds. I am proud to represent the beaches in the

Syrinsester.

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:01:58

Good afternoon, I am Councillor Julia Judd -Ermin Ward.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:02:04

I am Patrick Coleman, Councillor for Stratton and Syrinsester.

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:02:10

And I am Nick Bridges for Watermore, which is where you are.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:02:15

Ian Watson, Tepidar Ward, I will be chairing this meeting this afternoon.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:02:21

Councillor Abras, I'm acting as vice chair for this meeting.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:02:27

And then if we go around the offices, Marie, if we can start with you and then we'll go

around the room.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Legal Services - 0:02:36

My name is Marie Barnes.

I'm legal advisor to this committee.

Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:02:43

Julia Gibson, Democratic Services Officer.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:02:48

Harrison Bailey, Head of Planning Services.

Dumodie, Senior Case Officer.

1 Apologies

Officer - 0:02:52

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:02:55

Thank you very much. Do we have any apologies and substitutions?

Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:03:05

Yes, we have apologies from Councillor Dillis -Neal who was the chair and as you

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:03:14

said you are chairing today and we have no substitutes. Thank you very much.

3 Declarations of Interest

Looking now towards members and officers, are there any declarations of interest?

I'm not seeing any hands going up.

In which case I will go on to the minutes of the last meeting.

4 Minutes

Now I'd like to point out the minutes that appear

in your agenda pack, this one.

There is a mistake in them.

You do have a supplement.

The new supplement is correct to the mistake.

It's just on the voting record which has been corrected.

The minutes that appear on the website are the correct minutes.

The error is just in your green agenda pack.

So if you could take a look at that.

If anybody has got any questions, we will go through that.

If not, if somebody would like to propose those minutes.

Julia.

What was the error?

I mean, we're not going to read all the minutes again.

Julia, can I ask you to comment, please, on the...

Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:04:40

It was just the, all the minutes, the content is exactly the same.

The voting record hadn't pulled through and the names for the individual votes hadn't

been recorded.

That was the only change between your published ones and the ones in the country.

No content was changed apart from the voting record.

Paul?

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:05:06

I'm happy to propose the minutes.

Do we have a seconder? David, thank you very much.

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:05:12

Then Paul, could switch off your... Thanks.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:05:18

We'll go to electronic voting on this one.

Thank you very much.

5 Chair's Announcements

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:06:15

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:06:22

I do have just a couple of chairs announcements today. Firstly, I'd like to thank Councillor

who is with us at the back, she's leaving our committee,

not because she doesn't like us,

but she will be moving over to overview and scrutiny.

There will be a, I think at some point, a decision about who will replace her.

David, you...

Councillor David Fowles - 0:06:57

I was just going to say it will be a conservative.

Yeah, it's a political balance question.

so because of the political balance.

Thank you.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:07:04

I'd like to thank Nikki personally for her help,

guidance, and the great work she's done on this committee.

And I'm sure all of you are really excited about welcoming

her to their committee.

Thank you, Nikki.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:07:26

There will be a members briefing next Tuesday for the Planning Committee, but I think for

all members, on the delegation system, which is, you know, we're in the middle now on the

first, we will change according to law to a different delegation system. That will be

available in person and on Teams. And we will also talk about changes to the Constitution.

Sorry, it will be Thursday, so why don't you say Thursday at 10 .30 in the morning.

Yeah, I'm sure we'll receive an invitation to that.

Very last one is Agenda Item 10 has been withdrawn.

This is a public rights of way in Blimpsfield.

We will not be debating Agenda Item Number 10 today.

Thank you very much.

Julia.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:08:32

Why?

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:08:36

Officer - 0:08:43

It's been withdrawal from the agenda because very, very late in the day, after the agenda

was published, we received indication from South Cotswold Ramblers that they were going

to object to the diverted route of the footpath.

It's too late for us to get amended plans in, et cetera.

There's absolutely no point whatsoever in you considering that matter today, because

even if you were to look at the version and say it looks fine to us, we will receive an

objection which if it isn't addressed means that the matter will end up being determined

by the Secretary of State rather than the District Council.

If they can amend the scheme in a manner that satisfies the objectors, then we'll have to

go through the process again with a revised order, informal consultation.

But at that stage, the new national scheme of delegation will be in a force which means

it won't have to be brought back to committee for a decision,

but it means then that we can then proceed to do the formal

public consultation at the end.

But I'm afraid the objection came in, I think it was

it Thursday last week.

Possibly even Friday last week, but it was too late to get what

we have to get done before this application comes

to committee results.

So the applicant's agent has actually asked that we withdraw

it from committee.

they will discuss with the objector, try and reach a resolution that both parties are satisfied with,

and then hopefully we can proceed.

Thank you. I'll call you, Andrew.

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:10:06

Patrick.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:10:09

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:10:12

Thank you, Chair. This is a very minor point. On page 93, where Agenda Item 10 begins,

the one we're about to defer, it describes the ward as Tepary and East Royal and Tepary with Upton.

It is not. It is mine.

It does appear to me, and I haven't got total knowledge, that that isn't correct.

David?

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:10:40

If you have allowed the question, can I ask a question?

Councillor David Fowles - 0:10:43

I know it is normally your announcements, but you seem to be allowing people to ask a question.

Could I ask a question, please?

About my announcements?

No, it's about the scheme of delegation, because there seems to be some confusion as to when it takes effect from.

Is that exposed to a...

Well, no, it's not, because the applications that are already in the system, if an application has been validated, is that subject to the current arrangements, or could you just clarify, Harrison, because there does seem to be a bit of confusion.

It is probably more for the briefing next week, but effectively anything determined

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:11:21

after 31 October is subject to the new scheme of delegation. So including things in the

current system is based on determination, not submission. So if it is in the system

but it is determined after 31 October, it will be subject to the new scheme of delegation.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:11:35

Thank you, Harry. Going on now, Julie, do you have any public questions?

No, we don't.

Do we have any members' questions?

We do not.

Schedule of Applications

Excellent. Then I think we have got to our first planning application today. I would

just make a comment. There was a site visit last week. The members who made the site visit,

thank you very much, first of all. But if you keep your comments specific to the site

and not your personal views on the case,

that will come out later when we debate.

So we are looking at land west of Bath Road,

8 25/02572/FUL - Land West of Bath Road, Tetbury

Techbury pages 21 to 66 in your agenda pack.

The purpose is the erection of eight dwellings,

including three affordable units

with highway access onto Bath Road,

associated landscaping and infrastructure works,

removal of existing structure

and installation of sewage pump station.

I think we the recommendation is to permit the board member is Councillor

Laura Hall -Wilson and Martin if I may ask you to thank you chair but firstly

Officer - 0:12:57

draw your attention to the additional pages which makes reference to four

comments that came in we've had a further two subsequent to that although

those aren't considered to raise any new material planning

considerations other than above what's already

in the additional pages and also what's summarised

within the committee report.

Let's give you a moment to digest those.

Officer - 0:13:46

Okay, so the application sites located on the southwestern fringe of Tapbury, the Bath

Road A433 along the eastern side from which access will be taken.

The residential development you see on the photograph to the west and northwest is on

for an online that to the north is that at Shearer's Way which was granted

permission on appeal around 2012 has been subsequently constructed where

there's 39 dwellings that's a plan form of what you just seen that would be the

proposed layout so there'd be eight houses in total five detached properties

to the rear and the terrace of three affordable houses to the front which be

mixture of two and three bedroom properties. Also there'll be an

attenuation basin created towards the southern boundary of the site to deal

with surface water flows from the site. Then it would be a new vehicular access,

the existing gateway from which I'm about to show you some photographs is

further as those members will have seen who attended the site inspection is

slightly located further towards the town. Speed limit outside the site at the

moment is 40 near the edge of a 60 speed limit. There would be a traffic

regulation order required by the County Council to extend the 30 speed limit

from in the town at a section of 40 and then have a gateway feature so that

people approaching from the southwest will be aware of the new speed limit and

to make them slow down as they pass the site. In saying that though visibility at

the entrance for a road subject 40 mile an hour speed limit is considered to be

acceptable. In terms of the designs this would be the terrace of three properties

fronting onto the highway. These would be the affordable dwellings. Two house types

at the rear so three of the dwellings would have that appearance and the other

two would have that appearance. In terms of photographs this one is looking from

Bath Road that stood by the existing gateway into the site. So you see it was

taken in the summer. That's the view looking towards the southwest out of

town. There's a narrow existing pavement. The new access would be slightly further

along with a section of the stone wall removed. That's the view looking back in

towards Tepbury. The footpath here would be widened to two metres in width.

up to the junction with Shearer's Way. That's a slightly longer range view looking

further back from the opposite side of the Bath Road. In terms of pedestrian

links, this was noted to members on the site visit, the applicants aren't

prepared to do the two metre footway along the frontage of the Shearer's Way

Walsak Close development, but there is an existing path which could be

by future residents as in if they walk into town. Therefore the recommendation

is permission to be granted subject to a legal agreement to require the retention

of the affordable housing for that purpose. Thank you, Chair.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:16:58

Thank you. Thank you very much. We have, I see here, public speakers.

on my list. I think the first one I've got is Mr. Peter Martin. Peter, if you come forward.

Are we going to take a look at that?

Yeah, I think that's probably the idea. Mr. Hindle, as a supporter, the applicant or agent

Second is Mr James Durant. And finally the ward member is Councillor Laura Hall -Wilson.

David.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:18:00

Previously, when Mr Martin came to this chamber, I said that I had a non -prejudicial interest

because I've known Peter since he was a counsellor here many years ago.

And I'm embarrassed to say I think I'm the only person in the room other than him that's old enough

to remember him from those days.

Yeah, I think at that time it was allowed.

Yeah, so I haven't got any pecuniary interest.

I hear everything from my own.

Is that okay?

Can you just record the vote? Thank you.

Yes, that's fine. I was just going to say if we can record your declaration, that's fine.

Legal Services - 0:18:41

Thank you very much, David.

Objector - 0:19:09

I'm going to be blunt. If you permit these eight houses, you'll be making the biggest

planning blunder of your lives. Here's why. Just two months ago you refused an application

to create a community wildlife area on the fields next door. Every one of you, including

the officers was adamant you wanted to protect the site at all costs because you know Miller

Homes wants to build 135 houses on it. So this is what you need to focus on today. The

land in this application is identical in every way to the land Miller Homes wants to build

on. Land you went to extreme lengths to protect. It is literally the next field. It's the same

protected Calcareous grassland, the same Cotswold National Landscape, it's outside the

development boundary and it's subject to all the same policies you will use to try and stop

the Miller Homes application. And here's what will happen if you grant consent today. Miller

Homes will bang in their application, which you will rightly refuse and then they will

immediately appeal. But by then it's too late because there's no way you can defend an appeal

against 135 houses. If you have just granted consent for housing on an identical piece

of land right next door, please let that sink in. It's a Trojan horse application and you

are being encouraged by officers, perhaps unwittingly, to open the floodgates. And that's

the exact phrase you used to refuse consent for a community wildlife area in the next

field. Planning inspectors have refused consent on three local sites, one just 500 yards away,

stating very clearly that housing numbers and even a lack of identified land in the local plan are

not, I repeat, not reasons to ignore all the numerous policies protections for our countryside.

If you refuse this application, they will back you up. If you permit this application, they will not

be able to help you oppose 135 houses because the planning criteria are exactly the same.

They will ask you why you thought planning regs apply to one but not the other. You will

have shot yourselves in the foot along with the rest of us in the head. So I urge you

in the strongest possible terms to refuse this application. The decision to permit in

principle is irrelevant and you are not bound by it. There are no unmet housing needs in

separate. We've had 1100 in just seven years. So don't be seduced by the fact that it's

just eight houses. It's the planning principle that counts. It's not your duty to capitulate

to a Labour government's housing policies. You are not responsible for developers' profits

or even officers' decisions. Your job is to protect the Cotswolds by correctly upholding

in planning law.

And you can do so here in good faith

with a clear conscience.

Now is the time for clarity of mind

and strength of resolve.

Can you please hold my note please?

Bang on.

My next one was, and thank you very much

for listening, over to you.

Thank you Peter.

Oh.

Applicant/Agent - 0:22:43

I'm going to amend what I was actually going to say.

Supporter - 0:22:48

The permission and principle has already been granted, therefore planning permission cannot

be refused in principle on this site.

TETBRI does have a housing need, particularly for affordable housing.

I have statistics, which I won't bore you with, but there is a need.

And it won't be met through the local plan because rightly it is protected under the

air being the natural landscape.

So I welcome the development.

It's been designed in a way which is appropriate, laid out in an appropriate way.

It is not identical to the adjoining fields.

I walk in that area very regularly.

It's totally different.

The arguments will be different.

I've had the benefit of reading the inspectors report on the adjoining site and it's clear to an

easy to identify the differences between

This site

And

The adjacent one which there is rightly concern and I would object to as well a thought

If Mill at homes came in

But to the issues I was really going to kind of raise

Otherwise, they hide it her

the way development was permitted, there was a planning condition on it which has never been

followed through. So please will planning officers make note and cheque why there is not

a 2 metre or 1 .7 in part pavement down to the junction with barrels way because that was a

condition imposed by the inspector and then very, very slightly. But seems to be muddled.

Also with regards to the traffic regulation order, I wholly agree that it is necessary.

I had originally wrongly misunderstood that under the original consent it was going to be 30 miles

but it wasn't, it was to extend it to 40 miles an hour.

But this application rightly resolves what is an issue

and would make it 30 miles an hour.

But my only comment is that the...

It should be in a section 106 agreement.

It shouldn't just be referred to in an informative.

It's directly related to the planning application.

Yes, you can do it in other ways, but it's most appropriate in a Section 106 agreement.

Thank you.

Applicant/Agent - 0:26:15

As a reminder, it's three minutes.

Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon, Members.

My name is James Durant and I'm here on behalf of Cotswold Homes.

We are a private,

Applicant/Agent - 0:26:32

we're not a volume house builder.

We're relatively small and we take real pride in the homes we build

and the communities we become part of.

For us, building homes isn't simply about bricks and mortar,

it's about creating places where people can put down their roots,

raise their families and feel part of a community.

This application is for eight homes, including three affordable homes, following the council's

earlier approval of the principle of nine houses on this site.

It does have permission already.

We've since developed a reduced, carefully considered scheme.

We've tried to design something that genuinely belongs here, using natural stone and materials

that reflect the character of the Cotswolds and Tepary.

We've landscaping an open space to soften the development's edges.

We've also taken sustainability very seriously, as we do on all of our sites.

Every home will have an air source heat pump, photovoltaic panels and an electric

vehicle charging point. Combined with the quality of the building fabric

that we build, the scheme will reduce carbon emissions by more than 75 %

against the building regulations baseline requirement and that's detailed

within a report in the application. The access has been discussed, has been

designed around recorded vehicle speeds rather than simply relying on the speed

limit and a new footway will connect the site to the existing pedestrian links

into Tepri and the application also secures measures to reduce the speed

limit outside of the site as has been touched on. These are practical details

but they do matter. They show that we thought carefully about how the

development will look, how it will function, how it will fit into its

surroundings and how it will work for the people who live there. Of course the

development brings change to the area but I hope you'll agree that the eight

thoughtfully designed homes here including three affordable homes can

make a worthwhile contribution to local housing without losing sight of Tepry's

special character. And there's one final point that I would like to make. Smaller

independent house builders like ourselves, Cotswater Homes, have been

disappearing from the industry for a number of years despite the important

role they play in delivering high quality developments. We are proud to be

one of those businesses still doing this work. We support local trades people,

contractors, suppliers, helping sustain skilled jobs and keeping investment

within the region. For us every site really does matter. We want to build

homes we can be proud of and leave behind developments that make a positive

contribution for years to come. I genuinely believe that this scheme can

do that for Tepary. So I respectfully ask you to support your officer's

recommendation and approve the application. Thank you very much for your

Thank you.

Ward Member - 0:29:25

Thank you. As the ward member for Tepry with Upton, I support the officer's recommendation to approve this application, subject to the appropriate conditions being secured.

I recognise and respect the objections raised by residents, many of which relate to legitimate

concerns around highway safety and the potential for further development in this part of Tepary.

However, having considered the scale of this proposal, the planning history of the site

and the benefits it could deliver for the existing community, I believe approval is

justified.

This is a relatively modest development of eight homes contained within the existing

field boundaries.

It will provide some affordable housing and importantly,

access will be taken directly from Bath Road rather than

through Longfurlong Lane,

avoiding additional traffic movements through the lane

and the associated impact on its residents.

In the context of housing shortages in the district,

we must be pragmatic about what to support

and what to object to.

I understand why residents are concerned

that approving eight homes here could open the door

to much larger proposals in the adjacent fields

for up to 135 dwellings.

I do not believe this application should be refused

on the basis of a separate development that's not

yet been determined.

As members of this committee know,

each planning application must be considered on its own merits.

The proposed Miller Home Scheme is fundamentally different

in scale and must be assessed

against the relevant planning policies, landscape impacts,

sustainability, access to services

and infrastructure requirements.

Approval of eight homes does not amount to an endorsement

of 135, nor does it prevent the council from refusing that larger scheme if the

planning considerations justify doing so. I feel it is important to clarify for

the benefit of residents my support for this proposal should not be interpreted

as support for further inappropriate expansion of Tepary. I'm particularly

encouraged by the highway authorities recommendation for conditions relating

to a traffic regulation order to introduce a 30 mile an hour speed limit

and a pavement extending to Beryl's Way.

Since before my election,

residents have repeatedly raised concerns with me

about vehicle speeds along Bath Road.

Drivers are entering the town too quickly

and some accelerate down the hill

with incidents involving collisions

at the bridge at the bottom.

There have also been multiple incidents

at the junction with Beryl's Road.

There are longstanding concerns

that deserve a meaningful response.

I've always maintained that for development

to be acceptable to existing residents,

it should deliver tangible benefits for the community wherever possible. Extending

the 30 mile an hour speed limit south along Bath Road alongside appropriate

street furniture to alert drivers they're entering a residential area

would represent a welcome improvement. I therefore strongly support securing the

recommended highways measures as part of any permission. I also urge Gloucester

County Council as the highways authority to take a holistic view of Bath Road and

use this opportunity to consider further improvements to the safety of the

of the Ural's road junction.

The safety concerns on this road extend beyond

the application boundary and should not be considered

in isolation.

I would like to make a comment on the officer's

recommendation for a section 106 agreement

to secure the delivery of affordable homes.

Delays in process with completing the section 106 agreement

elsewhere in the town have jeopardised the delivery

of affordable homes.

With a fast moving geopolitical climate affecting

the economy here in the UK and therefore businesses

in the Cotswolds, as a council we must do all that we can

to deliver timely decisions and processes and not cause delay

which ultimately impacts residents.

Having weighed the planning considerations,

I support the officer's recommendation to approve,

subject to the necessary conditions being secured.

The modest scale of the development, its position

within existing field boundaries, and the maintaining

and improving of Cotswolds' stone walls and existing trees,

along with the provision of affordable housing

and road safety measures, provide me with reassurance

that this development will not overtly negatively impact the town.

The recommended highways measures also offer an opportunity to address concerns

that have been raised by residents for some time.

I do not dismiss local objections, but I believe this application can be distinguished

from the much larger development that residents fear it may facilitate.

Thank you very much, Laura, and I thank all of the speakers who have been with us today.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:33:48

You may now return to your seats.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:34:11

We had a site inspection last week of the proposed,

on the site of the proposed application.

Several of our members today were present.

I just go around, maybe I could start with you Ray.

Any thoughts or comments, but not debate.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:34:33

Yeah, the site is an open field basically and it's fairly level.

The only thing of interest to note really was the highway,

the fact that it's open and it's quite fast traffic movements there,

so that needs to be addressed.

Thank you.

I wasn't able to make the site visit Ian.

No I'm afraid not.

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:34:52

I'm listening to all of you on this one.

Thank you chair.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:35:01

Yes it did seem to me to be the obvious place where somebody might seek to build property.

It clearly is a relatively flat site and there is an issue of traffic.

I think if we can get a safer pavement, in my view, despite the hill, it is reasonable

walking distance to the town centre, rather like Stratton.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:35:32

Thank you, Patrick.

I attended the site visit as well.

I would concur that on the map it is adjacent to an already developed site.

I do have my concerns about the road there.

There's very fast cars going up and down there.

So that has to be part of any solution if we go that way.

And before we move on to questions for the officer, I'd just like to remind the committee

that we can only consider the case in front of us and not previous or potential future

applications. We're dealing with this case as we see it today. In that case, I'd like

open quiffer technical questions for our officer Andrew got Paul I think I think

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:36:35

they may have been first actually but I'm happy you took to you chair thank

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:36:44

you chair I've got a series of questions if you don't mind the application also

mentions about a sewage pumping station but I can't see any information and

report about it or its location?

Officer - 0:37:02

Through you Chair, sewage pump, I mean that will be dealt with under the building

regulations. Surface water drainage details that we've had included

attenuation basin that I highlighted on the screen earlier. That will deal with

surface water flows. The flood risk management officer wasn't unduly

concerned of potential for that but ultimately where you're providing sewage pumping stations

it's ultimately up to the developer and the strategy undertaker to ensure that that's dealt

with satisfactorily but that will be governed under the building regs stage rather than at the

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:37:39

planning stage. Thank you. Next question is the age of mentioned move is going to be heat pumps,

solar panels, EV charging. I can't see that as a condition anywhere unless I've missed it.

We haven't included it as the condition because such as the requirements of the building regs

Officer - 0:37:55

these days in order to get sign off under the building regulations, matters such as

that is going to be provided if members wish to add a condition on. I have a standard wording

I've used many a time that can be added, see what other members say, but we can easily

add that if you wish to see it attached.

Yes I would, thanks. The important thing about this site is the speed limit and it's essential

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:38:17

if the plans are going to be permitted that the speed is reduced. Now I'm aware

we don't duplicate conditions which are part of legislation elsewhere but I have

concerns about the wording we've got here in paragraph 36 on page 36

paragraph 10 it says the highways authority is minded. It doesn't say it will

it says minded do we need to be more specific the highway authority have

recommended a number of conditions to deal with this I mean the proposal would

Officer - 0:38:52

be that 30 mile an hour speed limit would be extended I think it's 2 .60

metres to the southwest of the proposed entrance and then there would be

gateway features etc so clearly so the motorists driving from that direction

that they've reached the town and they need to slow down. In terms of yes I mean

I've printed off policy DM7 from the new local plan because yes traffic

regulation orders are covered by different legislation. That includes the

the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the local authorities traffic orders

procedure regulations 1996 being highways obviously they rest with the

County Council in that respect. What policy DM7 2 says in the new MPPF was

obviously as recent as August 2026 is a planning system should not seek to

duplicate or extend controls imposed by separate regulatory regimes there are a

number of pre commencement conditions attached to the Planning Commission one

of which is a construction management plan so that would have to be submitted

to complied with and we can ensure at that time that the highway authority are

on the ball as it were with regards to getting the TRO done they are

insistent that they, whilst the wording in the report is noted for my

conversations with them, they are definitely minded to do so. But we didn't

get some, the applicant wasn't prepared to agree to that as a gramping condition

on the decision, i .e. a pre -commencement condition and bearing in mind the

content of DM7 in the NPPF offices didn't consider that we could pursue

that further. But say there are pre -commencement conditions and the

highway authority to consider that it would be necessary to reduce the speed

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:40:37

limit. Thank you. Well my last question chair is, is the supporter when he was

speaking he said we cannot refuse this application because it's already got a

principal permission already. Is that correct because this is a different

application to that previous one we got the PIP? Yeah the permission principle

Officer - 0:40:54

was granted last year I think it was for up to nine dwellings. This is

subsequently followed on. That's established the principle. I mean clearly

officers, the amount of detail you get with a PLP application is very

limited. It's basically a red line around a piece of land. But we did undertake

full consultation including with the landscape consultant used by the council

at that time. And you've got to bear in mind also the fact that the 39 houses

next door were allowed on appeal and the council's shorted judicial review of

that appeal decision and that was dismissed by the High Court. So we're

going against that background because that was that happened the last time the

council didn't have a housing land supply. Our housing land supply now is

even less than it was back then in 2012. It's a self -contained field and I would

echo what some public speakers said is that you know granting this is not going

to be a Trojan horse at least 135 next door 130 next door there's a huge

difference in scale between those two types of development but when all said

and done we do have to have mine to the housing land supply situation that we

have and regardless of whether or not we're planning for this through the new

local plan would all set and done if this application would refused then we

would be arguing with a planning inspector with a 1 .8 year housing land

supply to our name the permission principle is material to the

consideration of the application but you could refuse this for other reasons but

you know as a matter of principle the council has established that we

consider that is acceptable.

Right.

Paul, please go ahead.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:42:35

Thank you, Chair.

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:42:37

I wonder if you could help me understand the pavement

situation.

I heard Laura mention the pavement that

ran to Beryl's Close, Beryl's Rose.

Is that the intention?

So I've got the screen over here.

So that's the view from pretty much where the existing gateway is.

So obviously you need to appreciate that the footpath extended to two metres would extend up to the new entrance, not the existing gateway.

Officer - 0:43:08

That travels on down for 50, 60 metres or so, at which point we use to the right of where you're looking there.

We will cheque the conditions on the appeal decision for the Sheerys Way footpath,

although the only thing that's flagging up in my mind at the moment is it's more than 10 years has elapsed since that appeal decision,

so there may be issues with the enforceability of a condition after a period greater than 10 years.

But we can cheque that.

But in terms of pedestrians, the applicants were prepared to widen the footpath along that section,

back to the entrance up to the junction with Shearers Way. They weren't prepared to pay

for the section in front of Shearers Way. But as I say, there is a very short distance

away from the road. You do have this existing path that pedestrians could utilise.

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:44:04

Can I just, when I look, when I Google map this, there was the section that went from

the proposed site to the entrance to Shearer's Way.

And then we go a little bit further along

and there's a nice wide pavement.

And then it looked like the pavement narrowed again.

So when I look at this map here, I'm thinking,

so I live here and I wish to go into Tepary.

I walk along here and then I hit

another narrow bit of pavement,

which kind of negates the fact

that we've got this lovely wide pavement here.

I'm just trying to get clear in my head,

whether conditions on this would mean that I would have a two metre wide pavement

from the proposed site all the way up to what looks like a two metre pavement of Beryl's Road

or not and I'm not clear in my mind what that condition actually is.

Officer - 0:45:03

Thanks chair. For people walking from the site they would have two metres from the entrance

along and then along through the photograph on screen now they could then

turn left for a very short distance walk along in front of merchants walk

merchants walk sorry there would then be a short section of the narrower width

yes before you get to the barrels Road Junction the question is is how

reasonable is it to expect the developer to pay for that they weren't prepared to

agree to that would we refuse plan permission for that reason for a short

length of path bearing in mind all the other planning considerations have

this application on balance your officers considered the answer that

would be no but we'll get they will have a decent width of path for the vast

majority of what they would have to walk along from the application site to

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:45:50

Beryl's Road. I thank you for that clarity that that's the clarity I was

looking for it you know we're very yeah we have a lovely long footpath a nice

wide footpath and then suddenly we don't but I understand your point about would

it be good grounds or reasonable grounds to refuse it.

Thank you for that clarification.

David, do you have a question?

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:46:11

No.

Any more questions?

I think Nick's hand went first and Patrick.

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:46:19

Just from my understanding, why is there one less home than previously requested?

So the request was previously for nine, now you've got eight.

I'm looking at the map and I'm thinking you could squeeze another affordable housing if you wanted to.

So why the change?

Officer - 0:46:39

Permission in principles usually have the words up to in the description.

It's basically just establishing the broad principle of whether or not residential development is acceptable.

It doesn't mean they then have to submit an application for that maximum number.

Similar to an outline application, quite frequently outline applications, say up to 30 dwellings,

up to 50 dwellings, et cetera.

But ultimately this is the scheme in front of us and that's what we've got to determine.

So all things being equal, officers consider the proposals acceptable.

Not necessarily going to go back to an applicant and say could you please put a ninth dwelling

in if what's in front of us is deemed to be acceptable.

Thank you.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:47:26

Thank you, Chair.

And just a query with regard to do we actually have a policy with regard to developments

that have both market -priced homes and affordable homes of three or four different types, that

they should be tenure blind or is it just a sort of soft recommendation

because as far as I can see these for the proposed affordable homes don't look

like they're tenure blind in any way. We do but then a question is a question of

Officer - 0:48:06

this isn't the biggest site you're going to see in front of this committee. If

you've got a much larger site and it's very obvious that I mean I won't start

The affordable houses were tucked in two corners, blocks two areas of five with shared parking,

four courts and in between were five, six, seven dwelling, bedroom dwellings in between.

The application got refused and got dismissed at appeal. Looking at the layout plan, if you could

just put the layout plan up please, then yes it is clear that the ones at the front of two and three

bedrooms are the affordability and the ones at the back of the four bedrooms are the open markets.

But again, officers don't consider that sufficiently enough to refuse the application on that basis.

Thank you.

And maybe one more.

I missed something on reading.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:48:57

Do we know at this stage whether these are going to be unaffordable, affordable, or right to buy temporary...

Unaffordable is unaffordable.

No.

Unaffordable, affordable is when the rent's too much.

Or social rent or right to buy with or without.

Or have you decided it might be small enough

for a self -build site?

It wouldn't be big enough for a self -build site.

Officer - 0:49:31

The policy in the local plan talks about one dwelling

if you've got a site of 20 or more at a 5 % ratio.

I'm just checking no I'm afraid I don't know but I imagine it might be social

rent because that's the the main issue we have in this in this district but say

though the but will be able to be thrashed out through the section 106

agreement fortunately Finn McEwen as you appreciate retired this is one the final

comments she made for me before she retired so I'd need to cheque with them

exactly what they want but we can deal with that through the section 106.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:50:13

Thank you. Go ahead, Gary. Yes, thank you. We've heard highways concerns, highways

concerns, highways concerns, right, from members who did the site visit and also

from from board member talking about the current situation. Do we know if the

highways officer attended the site and has actually done a site visit at all

because we have obviously faced this several times before on the committee

where the the officer has done a desktop appraisal of the planning

Officer - 0:50:50

application opposed to a site visit. I don't know it's a simple answer I tried

to ring him up last week and I found out he'd retired which kind of ended the

conversation very abruptly. It's been looked at again by another officer I

in so at least two officers at the County Council have looked at it. I mean

it is a fairly straight section of road there is a slight blow but up and down

horizontal alignment on the road. The speed of traffic is a concern and that's

something they've acknowledged hence the requirement to adjust the speed limit to

slow traffic down considerably before they reach the built -up part of town. So

hopefully this application would be a mechanism to improve highway safety for

traffic going up and down the Bath Road.

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:51:35

And who?

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:51:41

Yes, it was Michael Sendall, who was the officer who's retired at the County Council who provided

the original comments.

Thank you.

And I also just one last question.

It's about the drainage and why is a sewage pumping station required?

Is this through historical problems in the area with the more recent housing there?

Officer - 0:51:58

Looking at the representations made on the application, and yes, it is a local concern.

So hopefully the developers will be able to sort that out and not exacerbate any existing

problems.

But as with foul drainage as well as surface water drainage, it's not an applicant or developer's

responsibility to solve existing problems.

Their job is to make sure they don't make existing problems worse.

Thank you, Daryl.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:52:24

before I move on any more technical questions for the officer in that case I

just want to make you aware oh please within your supplement pack for comments

were put in late thank you to Democratic Services they've made a supplement those

are with you there we're going to give you one minute just to read through that

It's one page of highlights before we move on to debate.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:53:19

It looks like most of you are through that now.

I just want to go on now to the final stage where we debate.

You can of course propose to accept the officer's recommendations or not as a case may be, but

I saw Patrick's hand first of all.

Thank you, Chair.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:53:45

I want to propose the officer's recommendations be approved and in doing so first of all

Complement these speakers particularly our former council colleague from long before any of us were here

Who made an equally impressive contribution to his last appearance here and more importantly perhaps the local members?

very sound I thought and very

logical

Summing up of the case why we should allow this one

I am pleased, it is rare, although I was a bit critical just now, or it might have appeared so,

it is really quite rare to get a development as small as this with anything affordable, social rent or whatever within it.

So I think the agent, speaking about the particular quality of Cotswold Homes,

I think to some extent so far he may have backed that up with evidence.

All in all, this is the sort of place on the edge of towns which we used to be able to

weigh up and maybe fight against, but we all know what the tilted balance means and therefore

I think we should approve the application.

Thank you, Chair.

I've just got two comments.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:54:58

One, it relates to Condition No. 18 on page 46.

I'd like to add a bullet point there regarding the construction management

plan. Can we have additional point of controlling the hours and days of

Operation. Something we often do.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:55:32

I'm happy to accept that if you mean days of the week of operation.

And hours.

And hours, yeah.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:55:40

And the second comment relates to the informatives. The wording of some of the informatives say

things like shall and should. That needs to be corrected because informatives you can't

instruct, it's only a requirement. So those informatives need to be amended.

Thank you.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:56:09

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:56:13

Julia, please you had your hand up. Yes, I just would like to say a little bit more.

I don't like planning and principles. I don't feel they get

explored enough at the time. This site is not within the development boundary.

It's in the Cotswold National landscape and we are running

scared because the neighbouring site was well on appeal and we've got the tilted

balance against us. So I suggest that probably three years ago this wouldn't

have been able to get game planning permission and it just seems I totally

sympathised with the objector Peter Martin's very impassioned talk to us and

I was heartened by what other people say that this is not a gateway if this

application is approved today it's not a gateway for the neighbouring larger

application for hundred or so houses to be built but it is it is another wedge

in the Cotswold National Landscape, the protection of it.

Policy EN5 is there to protect it.

And we are meant to be, major development

is not meant to be given willy -nilly

in the Cotswold National Landscape.

It's strongly restricted,

and yet it doesn't seem to be the case here.

I feel as though it's just almost been steam -rolled.

It's almost as though it's not even a policy worth considering.

And that is the state of play with the planning in the Cotswolds at the moment.

That's why I would like to draw attention to it because it's worrying.

Thank you, Julia.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:58:00

I'm going to go back to Patrick's proposal to accept the Office's recommendation.

I think, Ray, you mentioned a couple of conditions or changes.

I'm going to go to the offices to see if that would fit.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:58:21

Yeah, changes to Condition 18 are no problem.

Are you happy with standard hours of operation?

I assume there's nothing in particular about this site that we feel a more restrictive approach is required.

Perfect. And yeah, the changes to the informatics, I'm happy to, I think it's specifically the TRO informative,

but there may be a couple of others, but we can go through and just mention the languages, correct?

Did you want to also propose the energy performance of the buildings and the heat pumps and that

condition as well? As Andrew said, we have a fairly standard one we incorporated in the

elements regarding those details. As long as Andrew is happy, I'm speaking in your

part. Patrick, you're happy to accept heat pumps as well? Paul?

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:58:59

I'm happy to second Councillor Coleman's proposal, including Councillor Brasington's

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:59:11

amendments and I would just say that I believe that there is a need for affordable housing

across our district so I'm pleased to see that we have a substantive number of affordable

homes proposed in what is otherwise a small development.

Thank you Paul.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:59:31

So with Patrick proposing, I think Paul's seconding.

We've got Nick Bridges and David Foles.

Oh, sorry.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:59:50

No, I listen with a lot of interest and sympathy

to what Councillor Judd said,

and I wondered whether she was just making a comment

or whether she was going to make a counterproposal.

Are you just making a comment, or do you feel so strongly

that you want to make a counter proposal? If I may. I don't want to make a counter

Councillor Julia Judd - 1:00:14

proposal because I don't want to put this council at risk of coming up

against planning and spectra and losing it and wasting taxpayers money again on

it but my point is not against this development I think Tetbury are lucky to

have seemingly a very caring developer to to to carry it out. My point was to

highlight the fact that the protections for the Cotswold National Landscape are being eroded.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:00:40

Thank you, Julie. I think you make an excellent point.

In that case, I think if Tyler is ready, I'm going to go to the vote.

9 25/02389/PROWOR - Land West of Worwell Farmhouse, Tetbury

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:02:15

members of the public council

of fouls will leave us now. He's not feeling very well. But we are poor right and we will

of way which is a seldom seen beast in these in these parts but it's land west

of Warwell farmhouse in Tethbury pages 67 to 92 and the purpose is to consider

making a public path stopping up and creation order in respect to Tethbury up

to footpath number NTU 46 brackets part closed brackets at Warwell farm to

determine whether the order should be made. Case Officer Andrew Moody, WAB

members, Councillor Nicky Inge and Laura Hall -Wilson as we're just on the border.

I think Andrew if you're ready we can press on with this. Yes thank you chair.

Whilst we don't get many of these this is actually the same thing you looked at

June's committee. There we go. Okay, so this is, as you may recall, there was a

number of residential properties and a doctor's surgery permitted on the land

of the northern side of the site that works upon that are now considerably

advanced. That required the diversion of the footpath, so the existing footpath is

that marked in green and at the meeting in June you agreed to move forward

towards confirming the order with regard to the route shown in red. If I show you

that as a planner I will come back to that one in a moment. I'll show you the

photographs first so this this is the view taken from the Sylesester Road so

the existing footpath moves off on the left -hand side of the screen behind the

trees on the left -hand side of the proposed route of the footpath diversion carries on

in the centre of the screen.

So that is the existing footpath, leads through there.

I could only go so far because of the digger, but that is the other end of it.

It literally runs through the route where the houses are and where the retaining wall

is at the present time.

The proposed route had been constructed along here.

So this is all the same as you saw back in June.

So after your decision

the issue of the Warwell became

raised. As stated in the report, we have a couple of objections

received from the Stroud Ramming Club and the South Cotswold Ramblers,

which meant that they had to go back to first principles and start again.

So if I should rather than, well, I'll put it up on the screen,

but if you look at page 91

agenda pack. You will see that plan. It's more or less the same plan as you

considered in June. The little spur from E to F in June was to be a permissive

extension to the footpath such that those walking could actually look at the

wall well. That was the source of the objections. So following negotiation

between the developer and the objectors.

That little spurn there between E and F is now to be formally part of the adopted public

right of way.

That appears to have overcome the objections.

So therefore, the recommendation is then to proceed to make the path order.

If you're minded to say yes, then we will go out to a further round of formal consultation,

assuming no objections are received to that, then the diversion can be

Officer - 1:06:18

proceeded to be confirmed. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much Andrew. I do

have a couple of speakers registered here on my list. I will do the same as

before. Mr. Hindle, if you would come forward. Laura and Nikki, are you both

speaking or nominating one or...

You're double teaming us.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, David.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:07:00

I'm going to ask you to start us off.

Again, it will be three minutes.

Democratic Services will be timing and we'll give you a word when the three minutes is up.

So whenever you're ready, please go ahead.

Applicant/Agent - 1:07:14

Supporter - 1:07:19

Right. I support the application because it's a better route than what previously existed,

which was combined with an access to a farm, whereas now there's the new access

to the farm which you saw in the photographs and then the public right

away has been totally separated from that access. It's also on the other side

of trees to where the residential and adopter surgery is and so actually

visually it's very good from that perspective as well because certainly

when you're walking down, you're not really aware of what's going on on your left hand side.

Coming up, you are a little bit more.

But my only reason for coming is just to, as I say, I'm supporting,

but to ask the case officer if he could gently remind, presumably stonewood,

that there's a pole in the middle of part of the path

which supports some electric wires.

My understanding was that that was actually going to be repositioned.

It might even be a mistake when they originally proposed that particular route,

but as I say, my understanding, which may be incorrect,

was that poll was actually going to be shifted. But it's just to ask the case officer really to

to just have a gentle word with the applicant. But I'll make it absolutely clear I am not

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:09:09

objecting. I am very much supporting. Thank you very much David. Ward members you've got five

minutes each. If you need them, you don't have to do five minutes. But just again, the

reason that we've got two board members is because this path divides two wards. So I

think Laura, are you happy to go ahead first? Whenever you're ready.

Ward Member - 1:09:34

Thanks very much. I supported this back in June and I still support it. I am troubled

that it has taken so long to go through the process,

but I understand that needs to be resolved

by legislation rather than in this council.

I want to note the recent works at the bottom of the footpath

as well, which has made the overall amenity impact

and getting down to that really treasured part

of Tepary really, really much improved.

And I think I would also like to echo Mr. Hindle's comments

that it would be good to remind Stonewood of their obligation

to move the Telegraph poll to make sure

that the path is fully accessible for wheelchair users

and bugging users alike.

Ward Member - 1:10:14

Yes, just again from my point of view, as explained,

it starts in Laura's ward and it ends up in my ward.

I walk this path, as I said, in June every day.

I walked it this morning with the dogs.

The landowner, the neighbouring landowner,

has done a lot of work at the bottom into the field that's part of Preston

Park which will make that now accessible so it's going to really make a

difference that whole little bit circular accessible walk now. This

particular part of the path really you have no choice because the old paths in

the gardens of the new houses. I am in favour of having access to Woolwell so

that people can go across and have a look and it's been they've done some

work around it, which is to be acknowledged.

And my understanding with regards to the electric

is that it was due to be dropped underground.

So that telegraph pole really is just a temporary situation

as far as I'm aware.

So completely support it.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:11:23

Thank you both very much indeed.

Are there any questions, technical questions for members on the recommendation?

I'm not seeing, then I will go ahead and read the recommendation.

The recommendation is that Planning and Licencing Committee resolves to A, make a public path

diversion stopping up and creation order in respect to the

temporary Upton footpath number NTU46 brackets part closed brackets in the

section 275 of the Town and Country Planning Act

1990 and carry out the statutory consultations

subject to response to any final minor amendment required by

County Council PROW officers and B to confirm the public path

diversion stopping up and creation order if

I'll let Paul's.

That was a mouthful.

Would anybody like to propose?

Thank you, Julia.

Seconded, Paul.

Then Tyler.

10 26/00215/PROWOR - Moorhouse, Brimpsfield

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:13:34

I think now, as I said at the beginning of the meeting that the second PROW, that's

Item number 10 I think has been withdrawn. So we're now going on. We're going on now to the

application. This is the 26 stroke 0 2 0 8 9 stroke F U L and it's a triangle in Donington

Morton in the marsh. These can be found on pages 111 to 142. The purpose is the

erection of an outbuilding. Case Officer Graham Smith and ward member David

Cunningham. The recommendation is to refuse. I think we've got our officers

is with us now. So I think if we can start with a short presentation.

Officer - 1:14:48

Thank you, Chair. The application site is located south of

about 100 metres from the southern edge of Donington, about 40 metres from the southern

edge of the conservation area.

It's located within the national landscape.

The application site shown there is a triangular area of land.

The property is actually called the Triangle.

The application site itself is part of the side garden.

So to the north of the triangle.

The triangle actually, the principal elevation

of the triangle faces towards Donington Lane.

So that's to the west with the building

in basically the side, the side garden.

That's just showing you the site location

in relation to Donington.

Floor plans, we're looking about 30 square metres single storey.

The elevation treatment, it's dark timber cladding, the metal seam the roof.

Some pictures, so that's looking towards the side elevation

of the dwelling house triangle, the sides in the foreground.

And that's looking towards the side elevation of the side of the dwelling.

So longer distance view, looking towards the triangle.

That's the actual site itself.

11 26/02089/FUL - The Triangle, Donnington, Moreton-In-Marsh

So the existing stone wall forms the boundary of the site.

The applicants have provided some visual 3D perspectives of the proposal and how it would look.

Note that the wall that was shown on the photograph is now to be replaced by a hedge.

That's an internal view.

Oh, and the office is considered that due to the scale of the development and use of the materials,

it would have a detrimental impact on the character of the area and the

cultural national landscape and the recommendations therefore for refusal. Thank you, Chair.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:17:41

Thank you very much. We do have speakers on this application. I would like to ask Kate Malloy,

Stephanie Baldwin -Thorne. David, will you be speaking? If I could invite you to come forward, please.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:18:14

Just as a reminder to the public speakers, you will have three minutes.

We'll be timing you.

We'll give you a gentle reminder when we get to the end of three minutes.

And David, of course, you've got five minutes when it comes to your turn.

And I'm going to start with the objector and that is Kate Malloy.

Please, whenever you're ready, start.

Objector - 1:18:40

Objector - 1:18:43

Objector - 1:18:46

Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm the chairman of Donington Parish

meeting and I'm speaking on behalf of everyone who objected to this application, including

myself. Donington is a close -knit community and none of us takes pleasure in objecting

to a neighbour's plans, but we believe this proposal would damage the character of our

and we welcome the Planning Officer's recommendation to refuse permission.

We understand the applicant's desire for a home office and workshop.

However, we question whether a building of the size required to accommodate both uses is appropriate for this location.

The architects themselves acknowledge that the building would occupy the most exposed part of the site, visible from both public roads.

This is precisely our concern.

This is a central position in Donington, passed by virtually everyone travelling through the

hamlet. This is not a discreet outbuilding, tucked away behind a house. It would stand

at the apex of the triangle, where its height and bulk would dominate views from both lanes.

Much has been made of the 2 .5 metre height of the outer walls, but the roof actually

rises to 4 .2 metres. Its overall height, mass and proportions are particularly concerning

in such a prominent position. Furthermore, a low traditional Cotswold stone wall would

be removed and replaced by a vast solid windowless elevation forming the side of the proposed

building. We believe this would fundamentally alter the character of this part of Donington.

The applicant site a building opposite the site as comparable, but it is a low agricultural

shed only 2 .4 metres high and has been concealed behind Cotswold Stonewall for decades. This

is not a meaningful comparison with this proposal. In addition, some of the architects 3D visuals

show open parkland and scattered trees beyond the building, whereas in reality there is

hedge across the lane that leads to Homely Derry and forms part of the

monarch's way. The architects argue that the building would

visually recede into its surroundings. We strongly disagree. Regardless of its

colour we feel its sheer magnitude and unbroken elevations would make it a

stark and dominant feature rather than something that could ever blend

discreetly into the landscape. The planning officer concludes that the

building would be an incongruous and over dominant addition harmful to the

character of the area and the Cotswolds national landscape. We agree with that

assessment. We therefore respectfully ask the committee to support the planning

office recommendation and refuse permission. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:21:37

If I can come now to Stephanie Baldwin Thorne. Stephanie whenever you're ready

press the red button or the red light will come on and start when you want.

Good afternoon Chairman and members of the committee. Positively this

Applicant/Agent - 1:21:52

application has attracted professional support from all statutory consultees.

There are no objections from highways, no objections from the Tree Officer and the

Planning Officer confirms there is no harmful impact on neighbouring

residential amenity. The Planning Officer also accepts that there would be no harm

to the setting of the Donington Conservation Area,

and that the proposal sits entirely

within an established residential curtilage.

The reason for refusal, therefore,

rests solely on appearance and landscape impact

under policy EN2 and EN4.

Members will note that this is a modest,

single -storey ad building, occupying approximately 6 %

of the overall 519 square metre site.

It is ancillary to the existing dwelling

and provides a home office, workshop and storage space.

It is not an intensification of development

and it does not extend built form into the countryside.

When considering policies EN2 and EN4,

the key question is whether there is demonstrable

planning harm.

The building has been deliberately designed

to be modest and recessive.

It has low eaves, simple proportions

and principal glazing facing inward towards the house.

Existing hedgerows, planting and the dwelling itself

all help contain views of the proposal.

While the officer describes the building as prominent,

prominence alone does not amount to policy harm under EN4.

The relevant test is whether the proposal

would adversely affect landscape character,

visual quality, local distinctiveness or important views.

The evidence before members does not demonstrate such harm.

The building is contained

within a long established residential plot,

does not encroach into the wider countryside and would be seen in the context of the existing dwelling, boundary treatments and vegetation.

Furthermore, the officer confirms that there would be no impact on the conservation area.

Taken together, these factors indicate a proposal that sits comfortably within its setting and preserves the qualities that EN4 seeks to protect.

Similarly, EN2 does not require development to replicate traditional Cotswold stone buildings.

It requires good design that responds appropriately to its surroundings.

In this mixed rural setting, which includes agricultural buildings, a timber structure

opposite the proposal, and a working dairy farm, the simple form and dark timber cladding

are entirely consistent with the local rural character.

As a working mother of two young children running my own business

without a workspace inside the main dwelling,

a dedicated home office would reduce commuting

and emissions whilst giving me a stronger work -life balance

with my family.

For us, sustainability is not simply

about protecting the landscape, but also about how we live

within it.

The workshop would also provide much needed storage

for garden equipment, tools, and our children's bikes.

Members are therefore faced with a proposal where the development remains within an established residential curtilage.

The building delivers sustainability benefits through homeworking.

There is no heritage harm, there is no neighbour amenity harm, there is no highway safety concern, no arbour cultural objection,

no adverse comments given by the landscape officer, in fact no evidence to suggest they were even consulted.

perplexing given the sole reason for refusal rests on landscape impact.

For these reasons I respectfully ask members to conclude that the proposal

accords with policies EN2 and EN4 and to grant planning permission. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We have our ward member, Councillor Cunningham, with us.

David, you've got five minutes. We'll give you when your five minutes is up.

I'm sure you'll enjoy giving me a note.

I would surely enjoy giving you one.

Julia, if you're ready, David, whatever, you're ready, please go ahead.

Ward Member - 1:25:54

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for your time.

I ask for this recommendation to be reviewed because this is exactly the kind of nuanced committee decision that you were designed for.

The officer has put together a thorough report and I respect the professional rigour involved.

But this is one of those moments where the planning balance requires additional consideration.

You will have read that the officer believes the application will harm the landscape and

conflicts with MPPF policies N4 and L2, Section 85 of the Crowe Act and several local plan

policies.

While I of course respect his appraisal, I believe it becomes less definitive when you

look at the reality of the site. Let's look at the evidence. Policy N4 concerns

in large part major developments, which this is clearly not, but suggest proposals

should be sensitively located. If you turn to page one, two, three of your pack,

we see that this particular corner is not some open exposed vista of the

Cotswolds. This is a tightly enclosed apex of existing garden. It is dominated

by the host dwelling and screened by a dense towering canopy of mature trees to the east,

established hedging to the west and should be viewed in the context of nearby modern

red brick houses.

If you look at the officer's photos on page 141, the view from the road fork today is

already fundamentally domestic.

It is a scene of driveways, residential hedging, domestic gates and parked cars.

To suggest that a subservient building in this specific setting causes landscape harm is perhaps oversimplifying the existing character of the site.

Furthermore, planning law is clear.

Recent judicial guidance makes it clear that the duty to seek to further the purpose of the landscape is a qualified duty.

It is not an absolute prohibition.

The Section 85 Croak duty to conserve the national landscape does not create an automatic

ban on visible buildings within established gardens.

It requires a balanced assessment of actual demonstrable harm.

Without specific objection from a landscape officer and given the domestic context, I

fail to see how any material harm has been proven.

Our local plan policies EN 1, 2, 4 and 5 are explicitly designed to protect the district

from genuine, demonstrable harm.

But as the evidence shows, that harm is unproven.

And in the absence of harm, these policies are not compromised.

The report itself admits the proposal is not contrary to parts 2 and 3 of MPPF policy L2.

Part 1 of the policy states, support the effective and efficient use of land and identify ways

of accommodating as much as possible previously developed land.

A home office in an existing garden would seem to satisfy that intention.

The officer states that the development will have no impact on the setting of the Donington

Conservation Area.

We have no objection from highways and no objection from our own tree officers.

Paragraph 1028 clearly acknowledges no impacts on residential amenity.

When you add up these facts, a refusal doesn't just seem unlikely, it seems incongruous.

But beyond the technicalities, there is a deeper question of principle.

On page 121, the officer acknowledges the benefit of this proposal for flexible working.

This Council has prided itself on putting climate change at the heart of everything we do.

Our rallying cry across the emerging local plan has been green to the core.

I have to ask this committee, is that a genuine commitment, or is it something we pay lip service to when it's convenient?

The Officer's Report suggests that this small structure harms the national landscape.

But a previous chair of this committee once told me that by far and away the single biggest threat of harm to the Cotswold landscape is climate change.

This home office structure is a direct response to the permanent realities of modern working practises.

It reduces the need for unnecessary carbon emitting car journeys.

It uses sustainable construction materials.

It is a local resident playing their part in a global crisis.

If supporting a resident in a micro -level carbon limitation effort is considered harmful

to the landscape, then I believe we need to fundamentally rethink our slogan.

Because if this isn't green to the core, then I don't know what is.

Given the lack of clear evidence demonstrating that this localised domestic proposal would

cause material or quantifiable harm to the wider landscape, I do not believe the statutory

threshold for refusal has been met. In the absence of demonstrable harm, fully

acknowledged benefits, the planning balance should weigh decisively in favour

of approval. Thank you David, almost perfect. If I can ask the speakers to

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:31:13

return to their seats please. Thank you David.

I would like to ask if our members have any technical questions for our case officer today.

Julia, please go ahead.

Councillor Julia Judd - 1:31:41

Said apparently six percent of the site this building I mean on the on the pictures it looks more like

50 % I mean that just it just doesn't make sense to me

I'm sorry chair. I can't I'm sorry

Officer - 1:32:07

Councillor, I can't explain the 6 % the workings out of that. It's less than 50 %

of the developed area but I can't honestly answer that question.

Councillor Julia Judd - 1:32:21

Just another thing, it's a single storey but again on the plans it looks like a warehouse.

It just looks absolutely enormous and yet you know single storey and takes up six

It just doesn't make sense.

Any more?

Officer - 1:32:39

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:32:44

Following that last question, really, I've left my glasses at home. I'm sorry about that.

And I don't think, even with the help of anybody else, it would probably be me.

I wouldn't actually be able to read the heights shown on page 129,

which I think is where a drawing shows the maximum height.

I think there's a four at the beginning

of a four digit number for the vertical height

for proposed south elevation.

Perhaps my question could be,

is the proposed south elevation the one

that has the highest height of the various ways

in which there is a top to this building?

and would that be regarded as unusual for a thing? Is this indeed a single -storey building?

That's the other part of my question.

Officer - 1:33:37

The figure on the plan, I haven't brought my glasses either, is 4 .2 metres.

And yes, I mean, it's, we would normally look at a building that's single,

a single storey would be Eaves 2 .5 metres.

I mean, it's an unusual building in terms of what's being proposed.

We don't often see that type of building, that type of an output,

were more used of timber, you know, the sort of traditional timber sheds and stuff like that.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:34:21

Paragraph 2 .4 of the officer's report includes some of the dimensions of the building if anyone

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:34:29

is else struggling to see. Just wanted, and asking one more question only, I think,

take the opportunity to say what a loss to the legal profession our local ward member is. He's

Now, the question is about conservation areas. I think you said Donington has a conservation

area. And therefore, how we see that conservation area from outside is very important. But when

we are looking at the setting of the conservation area, do we go so far as to say that means

from the conservation area looking outwards at its setting, which potentially is a circular

thing or roughly 360 degrees the setting of conservation. So is that is that of

equal weight the impact of the setting of a conservation area or have I

misunderstood the purpose of the protection wording? I think it's I mean

Officer - 1:35:31

it would be both in straight speaking in terms of the setting of it. I'll be to

be fair to the application in terms of the location of the site. I've never... the

report has never said that it has an impact on the setting of the

conservation area. It was more, I think it was more a question of in terms of

geography in terms of the plan that was put up as part of the

presentation just to show where the conservation area was. I mean it's 40 metres

away which, you know, given the size of the building is acceptable in terms of

Impact on the setting the from an officer's point of view is more is more the impact on

on the Cotswold National landscape

That's our concern

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:36:21

Thank You Patrick, I've got towel then Ray and I just saw Nick put his hand up, but we'll start with Darryl

Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:36:29

Thank you, and it's just a relation to the ward members

Comments regarding policy and for

And so therefore if members decide that that isn't relevant, then is there any

room for a refusal in that case because I mean I know this

walk incredibly well because I used to live in Longbrough for many years, and that's our walking route with a dog into into Stowe and

the moment you pass this property

it just disappears back and you've got that huge bank of trees that kind of shelter Donington

which you can't even see from the first way anyway,

shelters the national landscape

from this potential development was my question.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:37:16

I mean ultimately it's for members to determine the application

if you thought the policy wasn't relevant.

I would certainly question why policy N4 isn't relevant.

I know there was some talk about it only related

to major development, but I wouldn't agree with that.

It does say development will be permitted

and proposals will take account.

It doesn't specify what type of development or proposals.

I mean obviously it is for members to determine if you felt a certain policy wasn't relevant,

or you wanted to amend the refusal of reasons, your wealth and your rights to do that,

this is a recommendation you are determining, but I would slightly question,

I think Ian 4 is relevant in my professional opinion.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:37:53

I'm going to go to Ray.

Thank you, Chair.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:37:57

The ward member and the applicant have made great play of the fact of working from home.

obviously one which supports that but looking at their of a house on the side

that it looks to me like the house is quite large do we know how many rooms

Officer - 1:38:17

there is in the house I don't I don't know how many rooms are in the house or

what how big the the house is I can only go with the what's put in front of me in

of the planning application.

Yes, I mean, we acknowledge that the working from home element

of the proposal, because there is an office and a workspace,

that there is a minor benefit from working from home.

But in our opinion, it doesn't override the impact.

And just to clarify the initial point,

the landscape impact or the impact

is on the character of the area.

and it is localised, we're not saying it's got a wider impact, it's very localised.

Yeah, the reason I ask is because the house is so large, I would have thought there was

some room somewhere you could work from home there rather than have this out building.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:39:08

That was my point.

Councillor Nick Bridges - 1:39:22

My question is, it does look very dark.

Would you have given approval if it had been like a pine cladding to it?

That's question number one.

Question number two would be, it's a large footprint.

Would they be allowed to proceed if it was a smaller footprint now and then

perhaps have an extension in five years time?

Officer - 1:39:50

In terms of the the first point, I don't think it would have made a

difference if the cladding had been dark or light. It's more a question of the

that has to Therefore, are

be setting the inform staff

come forward, we would have to look at that on its merits.

Councillor Paul Evans - 1:40:41

Nick has asked my question about the footprint and I was trying to work it out and it looks

like it is 31 .1 square metres which is quite sizeable. That is 31 .1 is correct is it?

Yes, that is right. Thank you.

Officer - 1:40:55

Councillor Julia Judd - 1:41:00

Julia. I didn't say so, probably I just want to make sure. Did the applicant ask for a

Officer - 1:41:13

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:41:17

Councillor Michael Vann - 1:41:21

pre -app? There was no pre -application inquiry. Michael, please go ahead. First, on the size

of the building in relation to the site. We do in fact have some information here. Now

I saw, there we are, 3 -1, the application site, about 520 square metres. Then go please

to page 127 and we've got some areas.

Gross internal floor area for the workshop pit.

I'm not quite sure whether the gross internal floor area is 31 .1.

That's in the little square, little rectangle,

is for both workshop and home office.

But even if you're separating the two, workshop and home office, you get yourself to about 42.

It really is not a great building in size.

We're around about 7 or 8 percent marked, very roughly.

So, I know some people were a bit abused by the applicant who stated, I think, it was something in the order of 6 point something.

So, but that is, that's in the right order of things.

So, that's my sort of preliminary on some facts as stated from here.

fully appreciate it was not the case officer's job to do what I've done and it's an excellent

review of planning law in the Cotswolds. But apart from a bit of a modest concern about

the height of the building. I think it would be excellent.

Thank you Michael. We really should have been in questions and not statements but we appreciate

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:43:41

your comments. Are there any more technical questions for the officer? I don't see anything.

So let me just read again before we go on to debate.

The triangle of Donington, Morton and the Marsh, the purpose is the erection of an outbuilding.

The case of Grace Graham Smith, ward member David Cunningham, and the recommendation is to refuse.

At this point is there anybody who would like to speak, submit or...

Councillor Paul Evans - 1:44:18

Thank you, Chair. I'd just like to say thank you to both the applicant and the

objective for some very useful information and well spoken. I absolutely get the

intent to work from home. It's commendable, I think we should be

encouraging it. The problem I have and Councillor Judd touched on this is that

it looks enormous and the colour of and it might just be the pictures but

the sheer size of a 4 .3, 4 .2 metre building there, I wish this was a

Well, I know, I know. I would like to understand, is there a third option, which is to defer

for something else to come back that is slightly more smaller and in keeping with the surroundings?

Because I absolutely get the intent of this.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:45:20

Yeah, Paul, if I might step in there. We're in a very tricky position and on 31st of October

the rules will change. I would submit that we decide this case,

well why are the other today, otherwise we may run into difficulties in that case.

Councillor Paul Evans - 1:45:40

Understood, thank you for that clarification. Right, so that'll be a no.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:45:47

Just for members of the public, the planning, the national planning rules

will change on the 31st of October, that's why we want to come to a decision

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:45:59

Councillor Julia Judd - 1:46:00

today. So your hand up. Yeah, it's a shame that the applicant didn't go for free

applicants, it could have saved us, A, this hearing today but also gone for

something that would have aligned more with the people who live in Donington

who don't particularly like this. I don't mind the colour, that's what the

the creosote, you know, stables and things all around the cotswolds.

They're often in that dark colour.

I mean, the fact that it looks like a giraffe stable rather

than a pony stable.

But, well, only because it's so tall.

But more importantly to me, I just feel very strongly that

enormous amount of the income that the government enjoy to

run this country come from people like this applicant.

they are generating the economy for the rest of us.

Julia, I think we're going slightly off point.

No, no, absolutely not.

We are.

It's absolutely part of the NPBF.

We're discussing a planning application.

That we should be looking at the economic value

to the area.

And so from that point of view,

I suggest that we go against officer's recommendations

to refuse and we support the application

for it to be passed.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:47:20

Thank you Julia. I'm going to ask, go to Darrell, then ask if there's a second over Julia.

Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:47:28

And I think it's a

stunning building.

Donington is a mix of former agricultural buildings that have been turned into homes

and also more traditional farmhouses. Even this property is, well, it's not that old. It's what 1950s,

you know, it's not a 17th century house.

Donington has always grown over time with different types of uses as lifestyles have changed

and working from home is something right in the heart of our way we work now, or where some people would like to work.

I'm fortunate enough that I've got an outbuilding where I can work from, so I need the space.

Obviously this isn't just a normal home office, it's obviously somebody who needs that workshop space

for whatever career or business that they're running.

and also where we live, you know, anything to encourage people not getting in their car and driving on the Fosse Way at

8 o 'clock in the morning or 4 o 'clock in the morning, sorry, 4 o 'clock in the afternoon is a good thing.

More people working from home, green to the core, as the ward member said, is something that we should absolutely stand up for, which is

why I'm more than happy to support

Councillor Judd's

proposal to

to permit.

Thank you, Daryl.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:48:38

Julia, as you're going against the Office's recommendation, could you give

Councillor Julia Judd - 1:48:47

planning grounds for that? Yes, I would cite MPPF Chapter 7, almost the whole of

it, and in particular E4 that support it. But I think also, I think, I don't

know whether that's the strongest one. I think probably, I've got to think quickly

here because I can't remember what the applicant said in her speech but I think

she has very strong valid cases there. I certainly would ask for any help to give

the council its greatest protection by choosing the strongest policy but I

that's basically supporting economy.

Julia, can you switch off your looking

at the light please?

Thank you.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:49:42

I'm just going to take legal advice just for 10 seconds,

if you don't mind.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:50:14

Yeah. So obviously the recommendation to refuse is based on the concerns with the design,

the impact on the character area of the area and the impact on the national landscape.

As we're determining the application, our starting point is the development plan. The

case officers set out where they believe there is conflict with that development plan and

policies where there is. There is the requirement under the Proposary Purchase Act that we do

have to consider other material considerations that might indicate departing from that development

plan. We are talking about an outbuilding which has been identified to have concerned

me. I guess the question to put to members is, or to you Councillor Jed is, do you consider

the design to be acceptable? Do you consider there to be harm on the national landscape?

Or are you simply saying you disagree the design is acceptable, there is no harm? If

you're saying that, that's fine, you're basically saying there is no conflict with the development

plan and therefore we should permit the application. If you say there is harm but

you're referring to chapter 7 because you believe that's material

consideration that outweighs that harm that is a very challenging planning

argument or matter to justify the effects. We say someone who may be able

to work from home but we can't control that in perpetuity anyway and who may

already be able to do that because we don't have those details in front of us

that that relatively limited public benefit outweighs the identified harm. So

I think from you I probably need, do you consider there to be harm?

You know, and if not, why do you differ from the officer's assessment?

Again, I don't need a full spiel, but just a bit of an overview of why you consider there to be harm or no harm.

And then your approach to the, yeah, why Chapter 7 you consider to be relevant in that context.

Shall I answer?

Point of order.

Councillor Julia Judd - 1:51:51

In my experience, and all right, there's a bit of it,

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:52:02

I've never known any requirement on a council members to give a reason for approval.

We always have to give reasons that can be defended against an appeal when we go against

an officer recommendation to approve and we refuse.

But when we are going against an officer recommendation we wish to approve, there's no need or requirement

as far as I've been aware, up until now maybe something very odd has changed, for us to

to give reasons for that because there's a presumption in favour of development that

runs at the heart of all the national planning policies.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:52:37

I may be wrong, Patrick, but I thought that Councillor George was going against the officers?

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:52:47

The reason you have to give reasons when you go against officers' recommendations is if

you're going to end up defending your decision and paying costs at an appeal. But there is

no appeal against the permission other than by judicial review.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:53:03

I will let Harry step in. I referred to 2 .8 of the planning protocol

which is part of the constitution which says should the committee propose to vote against

an officer recommendation it will be for the members to clearly set out their reasons for

doing so and these should be clearly specified in the resolution of the committee and recorded

in the minutes. That is effectively what I am after. It is going against officer recommendation

and therefore I need something to record as to the reason for that. Sorry, Castle.

Councillor Julia Judd - 1:53:25

I'm going to go to our legal representative.

I'm very happy to say my reasons.

Legal Services - 1:53:33

I acknowledge it and I'll be just one second just to expand on Mr. Boley's comments there.

Yes, we do need reasons for every council decision we make whether it's for or against and I'm happy you're going to go ahead.

Thank you very much.

Julia, please go ahead.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:53:52

Councillor Julia Judd - 1:53:57

And last, thank you. I am very happy to say that I do go against the officer's view. I

don't think this is not a gateway property to the village. So this is not, it's not as

though that's the first thing you see when you come into Donington. It has those high

trees behind it. It is within the residential curtilage. It does look, interestingly, architect

type shape but it does resonate with other local agricultural buildings in

the area and I do not believe that it destroys the Cotswold National

Landscape it's in a garden.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:54:41

Thank you chair. I wish to support the officers recommendation I think there is

a harm to the national landscape the building itself is too large and it's

incongruous and we should therefore refuse it so I support the officers

recommendation and I'd like to propose that we accept the officer's recommendation.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:55:04

Yes, Chair, I think you've heard a proposal and a seconder to go against the officer's

recommendation. We'll have to decide that before, I think, because we can't amend it with a direct

negative. What I think is that it's exactly right to say that it doesn't

affect this application, wouldn't affect looking into Donington, but it would be

the first thing you see if you happen to come out of Donington and you might well

think who allowed that? Now equally it might turn out that the colours are just

right and in some way this triangular structure built up to the road might

remind people all those barns that used to be built up to the road and we

preserve those barns and then people turn into houses and they've got to live

right on the road. But I think that's a bit of a long call. I think it is safer

in terms of protecting the national landscape to avoid having a structure

this high and that colour and that close to the two roads for people to say ooh

Who allowed that? Now, in passing, there is another council which used to annually, or

every four years, take councillors, particularly new ones, around the controversial things

that have been allowed, just to give you a view of the risks if you make a wrong decision.

I don't think it's that bad, but I do think that it is a safer position for this council,

leaving a legacy as we are for our successes, not to put a bit of uglification, as many,

but not all, we will see it if it is built in that place and in that national landscape.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:56:44

Excuse me, Patrick, are you seconding the proposal of the vice chair?

We will get that far, but technically we can only have one proposal under debate at a time.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:56:59

Are there any more comments?

I don't see any hands going up on a question of form.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:57:15

Can we just cheque the reasons that the council tried to skip?

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:57:19

Yeah, I think, Darryl, you are happy with the reasons.

Yeah, I would have said if I wasn't, but thank you for the courtesy of that.

Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:57:26

Thank you.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:57:34

Oh, yes.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:57:38

In terms of conditions, if this vote passes, are we happy with building materials,

design details in terms of windows, and probably the eaves junctions and things?

There's a tree protection measures condition by the tree officer.

Anything else, are you happy with us to just apply generally standard conditions?

For a household development?

Patrick, please.

No, we take the other one first. Anything else, Councillor Judd, in terms of your recommendation?

We can just include our staff, you know, say the materials design details is fairly standard,

the three offices have recommended that condition, there's no other consortee recommendations,

unless Graham wants to correct me on that. No, just shake your head. Is there anything

else you'd want to include? Well, the only, I mean, it's a very, it's a tiny little fly

in the back of my mind, landscaping.

Just whether there could be some.

Well, yes.

You should put the hand job there.

Perfect.

Good.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:58:40

Then I think at this point we can go ahead to vote on.

Can I just be really clear on what we are voting on?

You might be coming to that, but I just,

before I press any buttons, just be really clear.

Councillor Paul Evans - 1:58:51

Yeah, no, of course I was going to come to that.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:58:55

We are voting first of all for Julia's motion, seconded by Darryl, and that is that we...

That we...

I'm going to say refuse the officer's refusal, but that's not what I want to say.

Permit.

The application.

This is to permit the application.

So if you want to permit the application, that would be green.

If you don't want to permit the application, that would be red.

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:00:13

I would now like to go back to Ray's proposal that we put.

Do I have a seconder for you?

Paul.

I'm happy to second.

Councillor Paul Evans - 2:00:30

Can I just say that I absolutely fully support the intent.

The difficulty I have is the sheer scale of this.

The reason I go for refuge is because I personally think not the footprint is too big.

I just think the height of it is too big.

and it becomes, and to Councillor Coleman's point,

we get the who permitted that argument,

which is why I'm happy to second

Councillor Pressington's refusal.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:01:16

There's a lesson for us all and for the public.

Always get a pre -app and pay for it.

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:01:25

Thank you, Patrick. Any other comments?

I don't think so. Darryl, please go ahead.

Councillor Daryl Corps - 2:01:34

I was just going to say, if this was a simple extension to the actual house,

it would be subservient, wouldn't it?

Councillor Ian Watson - 2:01:50

Okay, then I think, and again, just to go back, Ray's proposal is to accept the officer's

recommendation.

So if you want to accept the officer's recommendation that's green, if you do not accept the officer's

recommendation that is red, and of course you may abstain.

I'm missing one vote at the moment.

are no abstentions. Thank you very much, Graham, and thank you very much, members and officers.

Before we head off into the night, I think it's going dark already.

can we just clarify that was refused? Sorry? With the accepting of the, can we just clarify that the Office is accepting the Office's recommendations for the fees?

Oh, yeah, sorry. So the, I should say that this committee is accepting the

officers recommendation to refuse the application. Thank you very much indeed.

12 Sites Inspection Briefing

Thank you, Marie. A couple of announcements before we leave. There is a site inspection

briefing for members on the 4th of November 2026. It says here if required.

I'm sure our excellent officers will be in touch if we needed on that day. There

13 Licensing Sub-Committee

is a licencing subcommittee for the 22nd of October, 2026 at 2 p .m. And that is a, I believe,

private van, private vehicle hire. Can I just finish, guys? The Councillors required will

David Fowles, Ian Watson, Julia Jurd, Michael Van, Ray Brasington, who's already accepted his apologies in.

And on the 12th of November, Councillor Dillish Neill, Daryl Corr, Ray Brasington, and that's a licence hearing.

If you can't make it, please, if you could find a sub and let Julia know, that would be fantastic.

and I think that is it. Thank you.

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, 14th October 2026 at 2:00pm

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:00:00

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:01:26

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:01:28

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:01:36

Councillor David Fowles - 0:01:41

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:01:51

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:01:58

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:02:04

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:02:10

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:02:15

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:02:21

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:02:27

Legal Services - 0:02:36

Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:02:43

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:02:48

1 Apologies

Officer - 0:02:52

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:02:55

Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:03:05

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:03:14

3 Declarations of Interest

4 Minutes

Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:04:40

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:05:06

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:05:12

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:05:18

5 Chair's Announcements

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:06:15

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:06:22

Councillor David Fowles - 0:06:57

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:07:04

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:07:26

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:08:32

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:08:36

Officer - 0:08:43

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:10:06

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:10:09

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:10:12

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:10:40

Councillor David Fowles - 0:10:43

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:11:21

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:11:35

Schedule of Applications

8 25/02572/FUL - Land West of Bath Road, Tetbury

Officer - 0:12:57

Officer - 0:13:46

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:16:58

Councillor David Fowles - 0:18:00

Legal Services - 0:18:41

Objector - 0:19:09

Applicant/Agent - 0:22:43

Supporter - 0:22:48

Applicant/Agent - 0:26:15

Applicant/Agent - 0:26:32

Ward Member - 0:29:25

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:33:48

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:34:11

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:34:33

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:34:52

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:35:01

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:35:32

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:36:35

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:36:44

Officer - 0:37:02

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:37:39

Officer - 0:37:55

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:38:17

Officer - 0:38:52

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:40:37

Officer - 0:40:54

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:42:35

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:42:37

Officer - 0:43:08

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:44:04

Officer - 0:45:03

Councillor Paul Evans - 0:45:50

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:46:11

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:46:19

Planning and Licensing Committee
Wednesday, 14th October 2026 at 2:00pm