Planning and Licensing Committee - Wednesday 11 December 2024, 2:00pm - Slides Tab - Cotswold District Council Webcasting

Planning and Licensing Committee
Wednesday, 11th December 2024 at 2:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Ray Brassington
  2. Councillor Ray Brassington
  3. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  4. Councillor Gary Selwyn
  5. Councillor Michael Vann
  6. Councillor Andrew Maclean
  7. Councillor Mark Harris
  8. Councillor Julia Judd
  9. Councillor Daryl Corps
  10. Councillor Ian Watson
  11. Councillor Ray Brassington
  12. Officer
  13. Officer
  14. Caleb Harris, Officer
  15. Officer
  16. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  17. Councillor Ray Brassington
  18. 04. Minutes of the meeting held on 13 November - Approve
    Status: In progress
  19. 04. Minutes of the meeting held on 13 November - Approve
    Status: Ended
  20. Councillor Mark Harris
  21. Councillor Ray Brassington
  22. Councillor David Fowles
  23. Councillor Ray Brassington
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Slide 1
  2. Slide 2
  3. Slide 3
  4. Officer
  5. Slide 4
  6. Slide 5
  7. Slide 6
  8. Slide 7
  9. Slide 8
  10. Slide 9
  11. Slide 10
  12. Slide 11
  13. Slide 12
  14. Slide 13
  15. Slide 14
  16. Slide 15
  17. Slide 16
  18. Slide 17
  19. Slide 18
  20. Councillor Ray Brassington
  21. Town/Parish Council
  22. Councillor Ray Brassington
  23. Applicant/Agent
  24. Councillor Ray Brassington
  25. Applicant/Agent
  26. Town/Parish Council
  27. Ward Member
  28. Councillor Ray Brassington
  29. Councillor Andrew Maclean
  30. Councillor Ray Brassington
  31. Councillor Mark Harris
  32. Councillor Ray Brassington
  33. Councillor Daryl Corps
  34. Councillor Ray Brassington
  35. Councillor Ian Watson
  36. Councillor Ray Brassington
  37. Councillor Andrew Maclean
  38. Officer
  39. Councillor Ray Brassington
  40. Councillor Gary Selwyn
  41. Officer
  42. Councillor Gary Selwyn
  43. Councillor Ray Brassington
  44. Officer
  45. Councillor Ray Brassington
  46. Councillor Mark Harris
  47. Officer
  48. Officer
  49. Councillor Mark Harris
  50. Officer
  51. Officer
  52. Councillor Mark Harris
  53. Councillor Ray Brassington
  54. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  55. Officer
  56. Councillor Ray Brassington
  57. Councillor Julia Judd
  58. Officer
  59. Councillor Julia Judd
  60. Officer
  61. Councillor Julia Judd
  62. Officer
  63. Councillor Ray Brassington
  64. Councillor David Fowles
  65. Officer
  66. Councillor Ray Brassington
  67. Officer
  68. Councillor Ray Brassington
  69. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  70. Officer
  71. Councillor Ray Brassington
  72. Councillor Julia Judd
  73. Councillor Ray Brassington
  74. Councillor David Fowles
  75. Councillor Ray Brassington
  76. Councillor Gary Selwyn
  77. Councillor Ray Brassington
  78. Councillor Mark Harris
  79. Councillor Ray Brassington
  80. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  81. Councillor Ray Brassington
  82. Councillor David Fowles
  83. Councillor David Fowles
  84. Councillor Ray Brassington
  85. Councillor Ray Brassington
  86. Councillor David Fowles
  87. Councillor Ray Brassington
  88. Councillor David Fowles
  89. Officer
  90. Councillor David Fowles
  91. Officer
  92. Councillor David Fowles
  93. Councillor Mark Harris
  94. Councillor Mark Harris
  95. Officer
  96. Officer
  97. Councillor Ray Brassington
  98. Councillor Ian Watson
  99. Councillor Ray Brassington
  100. Councillor Julia Judd
  101. Councillor Ray Brassington
  102. Councillor David Fowles
  103. Councillor Ray Brassington
  104. 08. 24/00066/FUL - New Barn Farm - Refuse
    Status: In progress
  105. 08. 24/00066/FUL - New Barn Farm - Refuse
    Status: Ended
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Officer
  2. Webcast Finished
Slide selection

1 Apologies

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:00:00
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:00:05
Good afternoon and welcome to the meeting of Cotswold District Council's Planning
and Licensing Committee. My name is Councillor Ray Brasonton and I am chair of this committee.
Members, officers and members of public in attendance are reminded this meeting has been
live streamed and recorded on the Council's website. Please can members and officers turn
their microphones on while speaking and turn them off so they can be seen and heard. I'd
to remind everyone present in the Chamber today to please turn off their mobile phones
or put them on silent. I would also like to request that the public remain quiet during
proceedings and avoid any interactions with committee members if there is an adjournment
of the meeting. If you would like to leave the meeting partway through, please keep in
mind that proceedings are still taking place and do so quietly. Toilets can be found to
the left of the Chamber entrance. For those watching online, you can view the electronic
voting record via the votes tab on the webcast page which is available on the
Council's website and will be recorded in the minutes of this meeting. Should
anything go wrong with electronic voting which cannot resolve quickly we will
revote to the normal show of hands. We're not expecting a fire alarm so we just go
off please exit the building using the assigned fire exits and make your way
outside down the stairs to where you came in.
The procedure the committee uses is for our planning officers to provide the committee
with any updates on this application along with a presentation. Any additional pages
are published on the Council's website. I will then call our registered speakers to
address the committee. I would like to remind those speakers that they are allowed up to
three minutes. Once the three minutes is complete they will be instructed to cease their remarks.
The ward member will then address the committee and may have up to five minutes to speak.
Going on to the introduction, so if the members can introduce themselves.
Patrick.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:02:06
I'm Patrick Coleman, the Councillor for Stratton Ward in Syrinsister.
Councillor Gary Selwyn - 0:02:13
Good afternoon everybody, I'm Gary Selwyn, Syrinsister, Watermore
Councillor Michael Vann - 0:02:16
Councillor.
Michael van Fairford North Ward.
Councillor Andrew Maclean - 0:02:21
Andrew McLean from the Resingents.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:02:25
Hello, Councillor Mark Harris from Abbey Ward, Syrinsester.
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:02:29
Hello, Councillor Julia Judd, Ermine Ward.
Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:02:35
Councillor Daryl Corr, Mortimer Marsh West Ward.
Councillor Ian Watson - 0:02:42
Councillor Ian Watson, Teprytown Ward.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:02:46
Thank you. If officers could now introduce themselves, please. Richard.
Officer - 0:02:51
Hello, I'm Richard McCastrom. I'm the interim development management manager.
Officer - 0:02:58
Martin Perks, principal planning officer.
Caleb Harris, Officer - 0:03:06
Good afternoon. Caleb Harris, senior democratic services officer here at Cotswold District Council.
Officer - 0:03:15
destination conservation and design
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:03:19
Alexander Kirk, Celeste
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:03:22
thank you, I notice substitute members
no, declarations of interest so many
no, I just make a
short declaration, I notice the agent is Paul Fong
he's, well he was or is, still married to
I was an officer who used to work at this council when I was an officer as well.
We have had a few social occasions, but that's going back well over a decade.
I've not seen any of them since then, so I assume everything's okay.
In terms of the declaration of interest, could I just go over the detail again?
was it? The agent Paul Fong, his wife used to work in the planning department. When I
was an officer in environmental health I obviously used to meet to discuss applications and there
were a few social occasions I went to when Paul was present. This was a long time ago
at least a decade ago and I've not seen or spoken to either of them since then.
Okay. So it's not, obviously sir, from what I can gather it's not a disclose bill, it's not any type of interest that you would have to actually declare.
In terms of obviously you've got the perception of bias and obviously predetermination.
Given the facts that you've stated to me today and the fact that it obviously seems like quite a distant relationship in terms of things,
obviously it's not a few but given those circumstances I wouldn't say that would be an interest which would affect.
Obviously bias is not just bias, it's perception of bias, so you have to take that into consideration, sir.
and you also obviously just be but I think they'll give in those circumstances I don't have any concerns.
Okay thank you in that case I'll carry on.
Minutes of the last meeting has anybody got any comments on the minutes of the last meeting?
No? Can somebody then please propose their accuracy.
Seconded by Councillor CUMMING.
We need to vote on that now for the minutes.
Thank you. So those minutes are approved.
Chair's announcements. I've just got two.
As you all know, we're losing another one of our Democratic Services officers, Caleb.
We did wish him all the best at full council recently, but I thought it was appropriate that the Planning Committee also does the same,
because you've served us excellently over the three and a half years, whatever it is,
and you've been a great assistance to me personally
in helping me to get along and to sort out any problems.
So I want to thank you for myself and on behalf of the committee
and we wish you all the very best in the future.
So if we can thank Caleb please.
Thank you.
The second one was in connection with the site inspection
we had three weeks last week.
I was disappointed in the turnout
less than half committee members turned up. I know some did give the apologies
but some didn't and I understand for one it was didn't get the email about the
site inspection but I remember sending an email out to all members of the planning
committee a couple of weeks ago informing them in advance of the date of
this meeting so there shouldn't be any reason not to attend.
I've always said before if a problem arises on a day and you cannot attend, please ring
or text me so we know you're not coming.
Because last Wednesday we all just hanged around in the rain and the cold waiting for
members to turn up who didn't.
Okay, thank you.
Councillor Harris.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:07:56
Just in a potential defence to some members, because of the email system you have to log
in every week.
It can be the case that if you haven't logged in for five days or six days,
that emails don't come in until you subsequently log in.
So you can look at your email and go, oh, we're okay.
So to be fair, it's not unusual in my case for me to miss emails that come in three
or four days later when I might log in.
So I do raise that.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:08:26
Just to point out, we all know the dates of site inspections.
They are the Wednesday before committee.
So it's the first Wednesday of the month.
So please keep that date warning free just in case we have a full inspection panel going
to the first Wednesday of the month, virtually all the time.
Okay, so that's the Chair's announcements.
Public questions, are there any?
No, Chair.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:08:53
Sorry, I just want to say, did you get my message that I'd be a couple of minutes late?
What, today?
Yes.
You criticised us for apologising, not apologising.
I did apologise and I apologise to the committee and members of the public.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:09:07
Any members questions?
There's none, Chair.
No?

2 Substitute Members

3 Declarations of Interest

4 Minutes

5 Chair's Announcements

6 Public questions

Right, we'll move on to the schedule applications.

7 Member questions

Schedule of Applications

8 24/00066/FUL - New Barn Farm, Temple Guiting

This is conversion of a traditional barn to residential use and we erected the five new -build
residential dwellings, revision of landscaping, demolition of five existing
agricultural barns and associated works new barn farm temple guiding. The
applicants Mackenzie Miller developments the agent is Morgan Elliott planning
case officers Martin Perks to board members council then Wilkins and the
recommendation is to refuse. So I'll now hand over to Martin please. Thank you.
I don't have any additional pages or updates so I'll proceed with the presentation.
Obviously some of you were at the site last week so you'll be familiar with it but I'll
run through the slides to give you a background.
First area, the application site is in red towards the southwestern edge of the village
of Temple Guiting.
Officer - 0:10:14
The conservation area is shown in green with listed buildings in orange, just to put those
in perspective.
The main residential area of the village is to the northeast and north of the site.
The application site, again, existing farm yard, agricultural buildings, the school is
primary schools located adjacent to the northern edge of the site and the village hall and
recreation ground are further north as well.
Again, to put the site in context with existing imposed, the buildings with red dots on are
the ones being demolished.
The building with the green dot on is taken down and rebuilt, albeit slightly shorter
in length than what you have at the moment.
The plan on the right shows the extent of the proposed built development and its relationship
to site boundaries of the school and also can see it in context with the existing farm
buildings and how that relates to the existing built form of the site.
Again landscaping plan that's been provided by the applicant showing an extent of new
tree planting around the northern and western and southern edges of the units one to three
which are the westernmost units on that plan.
Dutch barn's in the middle of the site
and the roadside barn is heritage asset,
non -designated heritage asset is on the rightmost building.
Looking at the existing roadside barn from the main road,
the single story range there would be taken down
and rebuilt using the same materials as the present.
That's again, gable, roadside gables.
as they stand, and the northern elevation of the main stone barn.
The metal barn would be removed and this entrance would be changed to a pedestrian cycle entrance
point.
Front southern elevation of the principal barn, that's the Dutch barn and the metal
barn which would also be removed.
The two dwellings, units four and five, would largely be in a similar position to the Dutch
barn shown there. And these two barns would be removed and this is looking northwards
towards where the proposed new dwellings, units one to three, would be located. Again,
looking northwards through the site. That was from last week. This was taken last May,
so it gives you an indication how the landscape changes over time. Looking from the village
called car park southwards towards the application site.
School buildings on the left, the recent school extension.
The green cloud building would be removed,
that's with the silos.
And again, showing the school buildings
in context with one another.
And these are the 3D illustrations provided by the applicant
just to show the relationship of the proposed development
to the roadside barn and school buildings.
That's looking northwards and that's looking southwards.
Again, units one to three and four ground.
Four and five is the Dutch barn.
New build element and the roadside barns on the left.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:13:35
So, thank you.
Thank you, Martin.
I must say you've done an excellent report there.
The written report is very extensive.
So, excellent report there. Thank you.
I'd like now to invite the public speakers to talk.
I have got the town councilor, Michael Crear, the agent Paul Fong and the board member Len
Okay, when you're ready, first of all, I'll ask Councillor Mike Crear to talk. You have
a maximum of three minutes. Thank you.
Town/Parish Council - 0:14:39
Thank you, Chairman. Councillors, forgive me if I repeat some of the matters that have
just been explained by Mr Field. This site, as you now know, was the farmyard for what
was New Barn Farm and it comprises five 20th century steel frame and timber buildings adjoining
the original 1800 approximately Stone Barn and the late 19th century farm house and the
primary school. The farm buildings have fallen into potentially dangerous disrepair since
the long standing Butler tenancy came to an end in 1994. They were little used by the
Henderson Andrews Partnership based at the Cottle Park and were vacated in December 2000.
Over the years, the parish council has been privy to several schemes proposed for this
site, all of which were considered inappropriate or of dubious value. One such scheme became
a planning application in 2020. It proposed the retention and adaption of the derelict
farm buildings as residential buildings, but both the parish and district councils deemed
this impractical, unsuitable for the ANOB and of low commercial value.
Since then the parish council has been consulted informally at various stages during the evolution
of this current application.
After careful consideration, the parish council in March did support the application.
In our response we did highlight 12 issues which have been raised either by councillors
in their discussions or by members of the public in a very well attended public meeting.
These issues have, as far as we are concerned, now been satisfactorily addressed.
So on the 5th of July the parish council confirmed its unreserved support for this revised application.
It will provide a highly sustainable addition to the village and conserve the non -designated heritage asset, that is the New Barn.
I would stress that this is not a greenfield site in open countryside.
It adjoins the 19th century New Barn Farmhouse and perhaps a greater relevance than the newly constructed high -tech classroom block at the village school.
As parish councillors we are aware of the sensitivity of any new development in the Cotswolds A &O B and particularly in our own parish conservation area.
What is proposed will be a well considered and welcome replacement by architecturally appropriate sustainable houses
and hot spots of disparate derelict farm buildings which are certainly not in keeping with the conservation area and the AOOB.
Should the current application not be approved today, the parish council is fearful that
the farm buildings will continue to deteriorate and the stone barn collapse. It is difficult
to envisage what will then become of the site as it will be well nigh impossible to create
a scheme, a new scheme of greater merit, sensitivity and commercial value. I would therefore ask
councillors to approve this application in the knowledge that it will enhance the temple
Guiding Conservation Area and in the opinion of the Paris Council be a fitting and sensitive
development in the Council's ANOB.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:17:53
Thank you.
Thank you.
Apologies for my phone going off.
Wrong one.
The next speaker is Mr Fong.
You have three minutes.
Thank you, Chairman.
Ladies and gentlemen, I keep providing me the opportunity to speak.
I found the Town Council a very difficult act to follow.
My name is Paul Fong, Managing Director of Morgan Elic Planning
and the Planning Consultant working on this scheme
for Mackenzie Miller.
I've read through your officer's report and accordingly would ask
if you give the following information, some consideration.
First, it's quite clear that the principal development is
acceptable because it's consistent
Applicant/Agent - 0:18:30
with local plan policy DS3.
And there is no dispute between myself and the officer
on this particular point.
Equally, there is a great deal of consensus
between your officer and myself and those include the fact that the site falls within
the fabric of the settlement in a gateway position where there would be enhancements
to the appearance of the site.
Equally there are large scale school buildings just behind the site that frame up the setting
of this particular location.
It's very much an entrance feature to the village and tidying up the site is a priority
for locals as you've just heard.
In addition, it is mutually agreeable that the site can provide a range of good housing
for the village in a reasonably sustainable location and the development will also provide
a suitable restoration of the traditional stone barn.
It is mutually agreeable that the matters that separate myself from the planning officer
relate only really to design.
Generally, it's only the courtyard of dwellings at the rear of the site that the parties do
not agree upon and these can be seen on page 57 of your report pack.
First and foremost there are no objections from your primary officers and consultees
except the conservation officer.
Whilst we have great respect for the conservation officer's opinion, his comments are centred
on developing traditional farmyard buildings rather than adapting the site for its new
residential use, embracing sustainability and providing houses that people want to live
in.
It is apparent from the correspondence that the parish council placed great weight on
the sustainability of the proposal, which is unfortunately rejected by your conservation
authors being inappropriate for this conservation area.
There needs to be an acknowledgement that the agricultural function of the site has
now been lost and accordingly a new development should respect the former use through massing,
design and proportions rather than mimicking the former use.
We have achieved this objective.
Our own heritage expert, Dr. Turnock, has had a strong influence on the design
and has ensured that the buildings are sympathetic to the conservation area and the adjoining landscape.
His conclusions are that it considerably improves the appearance of the south -west gateway to the conservation area.
And conversely, he believes the development would overcome the perception of harm that the conservation officer has raised
and should therefore be supported.
With regard to the landscape, the location of the new buildings
has been influenced by our landscape architect,
where he has concluded that the proposed development has evolved
in consideration of the planning and landscape character background,
and the resulting design has minimised adverse effects,
integrating the village edge so that new dwellings would appear
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:21:20
as part of the village cluster alongside the school.
Sorry Mr Fogg, your three minutes are up.
Thank you, Chair.
Apologies.
Applicant/Agent - 0:21:28
Councillor Wilkins, you have up to five minutes.
Town/Parish Council - 0:21:31
Thank you, Chair.
Committee, we'd like you to know I'm not going to repeat the seven
Ward Member - 0:21:40
pages I had to put to the panel to get this to the committee.
The reason I've asked it to come is because it says on the first page of the report,
This is a balanced development and it is very much on the edge should this go ahead or should it not.
For every argument that's made against this development there's an argument for it.
And I was able, I hope, to give you reasons to look at and hear what the complaints are going to be, or concerns are going to be.
And say, well hang on, the board council did say this.
The main concern seems to be the design of the farm yard buildings.
Well, how many times have you sat at a committee and gone, how could they do this?
And other times, yeah, I like this.
Beauty is on the eye as a beholder.
I bow to the experience of our excellent planning officer and conservation officer.
And so those members of the committee who have been on the committee, I did serve it for a few months.
What I'm asking you to do is to give a reasoned view over what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.
Coming back to the balance, if you imagine the Sattar with Justice on top of the Old Bailey,
she's got a sword in her right hand and a pair of scales in the left hand.
Now, could I ask you to put all your concerns onto that left hand scale?
The scale has got to be balanced, and the balance comes from the reasons for this development to go ahead.
You've read them, I hope. I certainly believe they should occur.
Firstly, we face losing a lovely 18th century barn. It is nice. It can be saved. It can provide accommodation.
You've then got the views of the Temple Guiding Parish Council, which have been beautifully
put by my friend on the right.
They believe it's well considered.
They welcome it as a replacement to what's there at the moment, which is just a mess.
You saw the pictures.
Not exactly Blackpool, is it?
It's archaelectrically beautiful, and it would be near impossible to take a relatively small
area of that farmyard and do anything else with it.
I know there's talks of affordable housing.
There's talks of can't we do this, can't we do that.
We need a developer.
And the developer has got to make a reasonable profit.
Now, Temple Guiting is not just an ordinary village.
You might wonder where the word Temple Guiting is
to do with the Temple of the Knights.
And you're absolutely right.
That's where they started.
and they started to create justice, they started to create fairness.
The local village church is very popular and it attracts tourists.
When they approach Temple Guiting they see this farmyard.
Have you just seen it? Attractive? Absolutely.
If you reject this application, which I'm asking you not to,
there's a fair chance this barn's going to die.
Effectively, you hold the life of this barn in your hands and ask me to come down on the side of keeping the barn, keeping this development.
You've heard that since 1994 this has just laid there and if you'd have been on the site visit you would have realised it.
Realised that, sorry.
There has been a number of applicants to look at it. They've all walked away.
This applicant hasn't, which is why I want to hold on to it and get this developed.
So yes, there are some negatives.
They're on the left -hand side. I'll put the positives on the right -hand side.
Now what way do the scales come down?
You were told it's a very balanced development.
I think it comes down on the right and I hope you agree with that.
When you drive to Temple Guiding, which I hope you'll visit the village, nice village, nice little coffee shop, I hope you will drive past this site.
And when you do, look at it. Are you going to say, ah, that should have been developed, it's my fault.
Or are you going to say, hey, look at that barn, beautiful, I saved that, please save it, please don't let it die.
Chair, thank you.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:26:20
Thank you. If there are public speakers, I return to your seats, please.
We'll now move on to members' questions and just point out...
Sorry, is that right? We'll hear from the panel after the questions, don't we?
We'll hear from the SIB after the questions.
No, because it was a full member visit, not the panel.
Yes, it was NSIB. They came after the question.
No, because it was no ...
I'm agreeing with you.
Right. I was going to say, we do have Justin here,
if you've got questions on the conservation aspect.
So we're open to questions, please.
Can we not say what we saw when we went from here?
That comes after questions.
Well, normally we do when it's a panel visit,
not when it's an all -member visit,
as far as I'm concerned.
Councillor Andrew Maclean - 0:27:38
We had a very interesting visit.
And I think it was obvious that the old barn is definitely a beautiful old building that's
worthy of preservation and a lot should be done there.
And then just walking around, we saw that the second part of the development was to
mimic the Dutch barn with a sort of semi -conversion but not really, taking it down and putting
something else up that mimicked it, to really make it continue to look like a farmyard.
And then we had some new builds at the back in a U shape that appeared to be neither one
thing nor the other, neither totally mimicking the farmyard nor being something radically
different to stand out.
And so from my point of view there was a little bit of an odd juxtaposition between trying
to save what was there already and putting on some new stuff.
But the principle of doing a development there to save this lovely old barn was something
that was definitely worthwhile doing.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:28:35
So that was my impression. Thank you.
Thank you.
Councillor Harris.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:28:38
Thank you.
Yeah, it's a lovely part of the world.
You know when estate agents say someone's nestled, this is nestled.
The whole village is nestled down there, as is the farmyard.
It's very, very rural.
The yard, you know, I don't get people see a yard like that and go, oh, it's ugly and so on.
In that, it's not.
It's a farmyard and you've got ivy growing over this old building, exactly as it should be in the country.
I'd rather see that in some overdeveloped shiny multi -million pound houses covering
the landscape.
But my point is it's very, very rural and it feels like that, very rural and very old
and so on.
In terms of the yard itself, we saw the designs and they make sense, it does make sense to
bring the barn back into use.
I'd argue that that barn is not ever going to be lost because somebody will come along sometime and do it and it's listed
So the owners need to do that anyway
but I
Agree with the point made about digging in digging in at the back at the back
There's a lovely sloping view up that goes up goes up towards the the top of the hill
I'm not quite sure it would look like going down
I think on the plans as well the the
horseshoe, I'll call it horseshoe type buildings,
dug into the side and screened with trees.
And I would always argue that if you've got to screen something,
then you probably shouldn't be building it in the first place.
So the point taken, yeah, it wasn't really one or the other.
My understanding as well is that the officers discussed changes
that would make it acceptable,
but the applicant wasn't necessarily keen to do that.
So I came away from that saying,
okay our officers are happy for it to be built on there and the number of
houses there's no debate about that they don't want more expensive materials
anything like that they just want it done in an architecturally appropriate
way rather than the way that's been proposed but it seems the
developer has chosen not to and wants to push forward with what they've proposed
but I'm sure we'll hear more from from our conservation officer about the
and the architecture appropriateness of it all.
Thank you.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:30:52
Councillor Caulf.
Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:30:54
Thank you, Chair.
And thank you to the Heritage Officer and Martin for talking us through the plans on site.
It was very, very helpful and insightful, so thank you both for that.
Initial response, I think arriving in Temple Guiting, it's a bit of a blot on the village as you arrive there.
It's crying out to someone to give that 19th century barn some love and restoration before it.
I hope it hasn't been damaged in the storms over the weekend and it's still there.
It's also interesting seeing how that Dutch barn in the new barn farm, the farmyard,
was going to be, as we say, mimicked or at least some sort of replication of that structure in there.
So then obviously the principal barn restoration, it was really interesting to see some designs on that
and the taking down of that front structure and rebuilding it slightly shorter seemed quite a sensible thing to do.
It was just that back section of the houses was something that I suppose is something that some of us looked at on the site
and had some concerns over the arrangement of that.
But I said I think Temple Guiding is one of the most beautiful villages in the North Cotswolds
and this site is crying out to have some life put back into it.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:32:15
Thank you.
Councillor Watson.
Councillor Ian Watson - 0:32:18
Thank you, Chair.
I concur with my colleagues.
I found the area, I don't know, my first time there, absolutely wonderful.
It was a beautiful place and I do believe that the site we looked at, the old barn,
is ready for sympathetic development.
There's no question about that, I think it would enhance the village, but I do concur
with my colleagues that the back area where we've got this little crescent of houses was
something that didn't fit right with me. I think if done sympathetically, absolutely
no problem whatsoever. It's just that design element there. And I think Mr Fond said it's
about design at the end of the day. And that was my opinion as well. Thank you.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:33:18
Thank you. You were there, right?
Yeah, I was there. I mean, the points I was going to raise have already been covered by
the various speakers. So I have nothing further to add to that one. So we will move now to
members' questions, please. Councillor McLean.
Councillor Andrew Maclean - 0:33:34
I just wanted to ask Dustin if he thought that at that back section, which I think is
hearing the area of concern to a lot of people, whether there would be any changes that could
allow houses of a similar size to be built in a more sympathetic way, or would that involve
more mimicking or would it involve sort of going a radical
department to do something more modern that could make that
acceptable or is it not never going to be acceptable at the
back there in his opinion? Thank you.
Officer - 0:34:05
I think from pre -application states,
there was a pre -application before this came in.
We were happy with the principle of development on this
site.
The key thing is it might be a gateway to the village.
It is actually within the designated consultation area.
So we do have a statutory duty to see to preserve Oina Hartsley's character.
And it is a very soft transition to what certainly in summer is a delightful rural landscape.
So from the earliest stage, what I suggested at Pre -App is considering we have the principal barn,
which is the lovely barn, and we have the large Dutch barn, these would often be accompanied by
a sort of a courtyard of ancillary structures, sort of single story shelter sheds, one and a
half story traditional stable structures. So at Pre -App we suggested they went for something
like that to get this more soft transition.
Then the application came in near as damaged
in its current form.
And in my formal comments back in February,
I re -issuated that.
But then I also said, alternatively,
a more environmental contemporary approach
might be possible with single tory structures,
timber cladding, green roofs,
maybe segmental roofs, using the topography
and maybe orientating to maximize solar gains.
It'd have a really exciting environmental scheme
that fits in and works with the landscape.
I think the size of the dwellings per se
isn't an issue.
It's about how the height form of massing sits on the site.
And that is sort of, to my mind, what
should lead the actual size of the dwellings.
It's about the massing fitting of the site,
because it is trying to have a soft rural edge,
whereas the existing or the current proposal
is for a very, very strong dominant edge
to the countryside, which has then been screened in by trees,
which, as has been previously said,
isn't really a sign of good development
if you have to screen it in.
And the fussiness and complexity of it,
we have these large houses with pseudo -thresher doors,
which are the only real concession
to agricultural buildings put on them.
These very complex massive forms and carports,
which really have a very domestic, suburban, and quite
dated appearance which I find would not sustain the character and appearance of this part
of the con area. But it is about the diet. I think something wonderful could be achieved
here, something really exciting could be achieved here. Unfortunately this isn't it and we haven't
had much success in trying to encourage the developer to have a more open minded approach.
Sorry, a very long answer. Apologies.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:36:33
Councillor Selwyn.
Thank you, thank you Chair.
Yes, thank you.
Councillor Gary Selwyn - 0:36:38
I have gone through this report on numerous occasions.
It is extremely well written and very detailed so it gave me a very clear understanding of
it.
Can I just query something paragraph 10 .15 on page 20, one of the physical ones, talking
about the financial viability appraisal.
It does say that a viable scene cannot be developed.
if either on -site affordable housing or a financial contribution to off -site
vision required and the district value as it says here is a divisor deviable
seem cannot be achieved if on -site affordable housing or an off -site
contribution and therefore policy h2 cannot be met in this instance now this
was a surprise to me I'm not familiar with the way the district value works my
query is, does that mean that there is no leeway on the financial contribution?
Are the applicants required to produce a certain amount of financial contribution based on
the size or is there a sliding scale that notes the affordability of the actual site
and therefore we could ask for a proportion of what might normally have been requested
Officer - 0:37:55
if that makes sense. The starting point is we'd normally
seek on -site affordable housing and we'd 40 % in this case. However the local plan
policy H2 does make exceptions if instances of viability and the
applicant provides a viability appraisal which sets out all the costs, bill costs,
values, plan costs etc. We get an independent consultant independent party
to look at that, that was the district valuer in this instance. They went back to the developer
for further information or further details and on the basis of all the information that
was put together they came back saying in this instance the scheme wasn't profitable
enough to justify a contribution either on site or towards an off site contribution to
affordable housing, even if it was reduced below 40 % it still wouldn't be viable. I think
it is accepted generally that developers can make up to 17, I think in this instance it
was a 17 .5 % profit.
So once you start going below that,
then you can say your scheme's not going to be viable.
It's not a case of the development not breaking even.
It's just below that kind of profit level.
So in that instance, in accordance
with the requirements of policy H2,
we've had it independently assessed.
And that's come back and says it's not
viable to provide on -site or a financial contribution
towards off -site in this instance.
So we've accepted that.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:39:20
Councillor Gary Selwyn - 0:39:20
So my understanding then is if they're going to make 17 .5 % profit then they'll make a contribution but if it's 17 .4 % then they have to pay nothing.
Officer - 0:39:33
We make a judgement over, I don't think it's quite that hard for us but it's a general guide and a rule of thumb that's used and that's what the guide...
reducing the amount of affordable housing contribution or numbers that would be required.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:39:58
Thank you.
Councillor Harris.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:40:01
Thank you. I've got two questions and Councillor Selwyn's opened a can of worms for me there.
So if they're built out in three years time and the property values go up and they're getting 24%, what happens then?
Sorry, sorry, it was only because the question threw that open to me and said, you know,
what, at what point, because these will be, yeah, we can't decide that.
These will be million pound houses, I suspect.
Officer - 0:40:30
Well, they probably already are, but according to the viability appraisal, I think we would
just have to look at it as it stands at the moment.
I think if we were asking for a contribution, say, several hundred thousand or something,
Then usually there is a clause in there that takes account of profits increasing or whatever,
but in this instance we just have to take it at face value on what we have at the current
time and that's how we look at it.
Officer - 0:40:53
Just to add to the government advice, generally if it's a multi -phase, a larger or a multi -phase
scheme, over many years you might need to review how the values and the costs change.
The values and costs have not been going in the right direction to help additional affordability
in recent years, sadly.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:41:13
So my question to both of you really,
so there was a pre -app seeking advice
and how best to move this forward.
You provided your advice about how best to move this forward
and they chose not to take that.
Did your proposals that would have probably seen it
sailing through, and I appreciate you're not a quantity surveyor
or anything like that,
do you think your proposals would have dramatically changed the build price for
the that they were proposing or you know were you asking for it to be made out of
sort of to be gold -leafed and using terribly expensive stone and timber and
Officer - 0:42:01
so on or was it more a design thing? Firstly I definitely couldn't comment on
on cost per se but we weren't specifying any specific materials if they had gone
down the traditional route one would normally have expected stone. If they
went for a more contemporary route which is resisted they could use things like
timber cladding, glass roofs, photovoltaic roofs, so I don't think we were asking
for anything abnormally expensive. Could I also just clarify one point it was
mentioned earlier that the historic barn was listed it's not it's a non
designated heritage asset just just put that on the record.
Officer - 0:42:36
Just as a, yeah, we essentially don't go into detail.
If we're looking at the right design for a scheme, we don't go and do numbers and say,
and draw a line as to what's more or less viable.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:42:50
My reason for asking that is that there might be situations where it's perceived that we're being sort of,
perceptibly, unreasonably demanding because it would cost four times as much to use natural stone
as opposed to some, but if it's not really the case,
then that's fine.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:43:08
Over to you.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:43:13
Thank you.
I think this issue of the design of some of the new properties
was summed up as being a question of whether it's
going to reflect proportions of buildings that used to be there
rather than mimicking.
Is there anything that you know of that's been built out in the last few years that looks much like what's proposed for the buildings that are the subject of the main subject of our problem at the moment?
Or are they a new step in either mimicking or reflecting what's been there before?
Officer - 0:43:51
In this district, no, I'm not aware of anything like this that has been built in in recent years.
To be honest, it does remind me of things I recall seeing going up in the 1980s and
1990s when I was a child, the fussiness and complexity of them.
But certainly in this district where we do seek either to have a very good reflection
of the vernacular or good contemporary design that really stands on its own merits as contemporary
design, I'm not aware of anything like this that we've permitted that I know of or in
my time here.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:44:25
I have got Councillor Jude followed by Councillor Fould.
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:44:28
Thank you. I'm not sure who I asked this question to, but certainly Justin can help me. Is there
a sort of guidebook for what we love, what developments that we've done, that we've approved
in the last year, two years, four years, that I'm just thinking in terms of what you like,
why do you like it? I mean we know what's in the Cotswolds design code in words, but
is there a visual display anywhere for developers to say they love that sort of thing because?
Officer - 0:45:06
In terms of good quality contemporary, there isn't really but in the team we do have and we have gone
through a process on occasion of trying to collect images of schemes we permitted that we think
successful which we will regularly send out with applicants if we're if we think trying to push
them in a very specific direction and in terms of if you're taking more of an actual approach there
are some very good academic books about traditional Cotswold buildings, traditional Cotswold farm
buildings that do explain about how the general forms
and massings work and the sort of general forms
that are sympathetic to the district.
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:45:42
I mean, if you wouldn't mind if I'm just following it up,
but I'm not an architect.
I'm not expert in this.
But I can see that there's a massive variation in roof
heights up and down.
And the walls are in one minute and out the other.
And there's an open bit the next bit.
So I can see if that's what you are we saying the same thing when it's a complicated design
and something a little bit more simple and linear would be preferable to you whatever the materials were.
Officer - 0:46:17
Absolutely. It is it is a very very fussy and complicated design.
Traditional agricultural buildings were generally simple.
It was simple linear or L -shaped structures for the most part.
It's interesting that the adjacent school building has been referred to a few times.
Actually, that is a very simple linear building with timber cladding, and it sits very comfortably
in an agricultural context.
It is the fastiness of the change -assing and the sheer scale, the idea that we're
sort of getting an approximation of three threshing barns immediately adjacent to another
threshing barn, just the sheer density of so many agricultural structures of that scale
will be uncharacteristic.
Normally you might get one or two barns
and then they will be accompanied
by simple linear shelter sheds
that would be either linear or L -shaped
or sometimes even around three sides.
You -
Yeah, sort of the open fronted single story,
generally about five meters, six meters deep.
Often you would, you get sort of things
like a traditional stable,
which would be one and a half story
with some stapling underneath and a hayloft above.
But they were never the scared of the main barn.
The main barn dominated
and then you had these sort of gentle,
small things going down.
And it was also quite usual to have the scale decreasing
towards the edge of the landscape,
which then we have our policies and design code that talk about
scale development should decrease towards the edge of the landscape
so that you have that soft transition from the rural countryside
to the built development.
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:47:40
Thank you very much.
That's brilliant.
Officer - 0:47:43
I just wanted to add, because we've heard language such as
preference and what we like, I think officers,
Our goal in terms of decision making would be if we had a different conservation officer
and a different planning officer, different manager, we would come to the same people.
It's the application of the consideration of the suitability and appropriateness of
development in that context.
That's what we like as opposed to personal preference.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:48:11
Councillor Fowls.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:48:13
Thank you, Chairman.
I too can go with what's already been said about Martin's report, but I think Justin's
really articulated the nature of the problem.
And for me, having seen you present over a number of years,
it seems that you've been quite supportive
because sometimes you can dig your heels in.
So the question I'm trying to get my head around
is it appeared from the parish council meeting on page 13,
713, that there's been lots of dialogue
and that the applicant has really tried to accommodate
the concerns raised by us and in particular by Justin.
And I sort of want to get a sense of are we,
is this sort of at the end of the road, as it were,
and that there's been pre -app and lots of dialogue
and that this is the point at which the applicant says,
no, I'm not prepared to go any further.
Because it seems to me that the principle
of doing something there is supported by us,
by members, et cetera.
The board members spoke very eloquently
about the scales of justice and so on and so forth.
But it just seems a great shame
that we're not able to find a solution.
I wondered whether there's more scope for discussion
because in principle, for a developer and an agent
to come here with this site,
given where it's located with the principle established
that we'd support it and the parish council
and the meetings and so on,
it just seems to me to be unbelievable
that we can't find a solution.
So what's your sense?
I suppose it's directed at both of you, Martin and Justin,
because the impression I'm getting
is there's been lots of dialogue,
yet the agent seemed to say that, with all due respect, Justin, that the problem rested with you.
Officer - 0:49:53
The discussions have been going on. There was the pre -app where there was an initial scheme and we gave advice.
And then a further sketch scheme and we gave advice again, which again was around the signs of a simple linear courtyard.
Then the application came in in January, February.
and the application that I didn't comment on it and part of my comment
was saying this hasn't addressed the comment of my pre -application report and
that's when I state again we could go for this traditional sort of low -key
aquaculture range or something very green and contemporary that fits in with
the landscape and has a soft green look. There has been change to the
detailing of the historic barn and they have moved on that. The design of the
three new houses, the only change between the drawings that we received in February
and the current drawings is that at my request they now show the solar panels. That's the
only change. There has been no other change, I'm afraid. However much we've asked for it
or pushed for it, there's just been no flexibility on behalf of the applicants at all.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:51:06
Officer - 0:51:09
Yes, I mean the drawings that we've got now that came in in January, that's the first
time we saw those in that form.
We had different drawings at the pre -op stage.
We commented and provided response on design grounds in February, as Justin said.
In June we got amended plans and they just showed the solar panels and we've not had
anything since.
A lot of the time has been spent discussing viability and going back and
forth with the TV and there's been a lot of discussions about roof lights and
bats and various biodiversity issues but in terms of design now other than the
recent changes to the roadside barn there hasn't been any material changes
made to units one to three during the course of this application.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:51:52
Thank you.
Councillor Coleman.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:51:56
Thank you, Chair. Just a reminder for my own benefit, if this were to be constructed, and
looking particularly at the matter at issue, because it's in a conservation area, would any
further change of any sort, such as extensions or upward work that might have altered the appearance
of this the three properties concern would that need to come to committee
because it's a conservation area and there's very little stuff very different
you're allowed to do in a conservation area without getting a Planning
Commission even though they're new buildings or they would be new buildings
Officer - 0:52:48
Is that in the event that this was permitted?
If it was to be, we would normally request conditions for moving permitted development
rights for certain things like extensions and openings and means of enclosure.
An application would be submitted in those instances.
Ordinarily that would not come back to planning committee unless the ward Councillor made
in question to do so.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:53:13
Any more questions, members?
No?
So we'll now move on to comments.
Comments, Councillor George.
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:53:23
Well, I say that this is potentially
in the most wonderful development.
And it's so refreshing to see a parish council supporting
such a scheme.
And I have forward thinking and generous of you,
because we see far too often a little bit,
not quite enough of that.
However, we have these experts on this council
to protect the consuls and to get the best out
of these situations.
And it's wonderful.
There are two two -bedroom properties in this.
How often do we see that?
Not enough.
I mean, we love this.
We absolutely want it to be built.
But we've asked for the design to be changed.
I'm looking at an email now going back to July.
asking for it to be changed and yet the only thing that was changed was the solar panels.
So I beg the applicant to rethink, listen to these experts, listen to the Council, obviously
we're trying to work with you and get this built.
Councillor Fowls.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:54:27
Councillor David Fowles - 0:54:29
Yeah, I'd like to go a little bit further than Councillor Judd, but along the same lines,
which is why I asked the question about what dialogue and so on,
because I was reading one thing and hearing another,
and it seems to me that we've got an applicant,
we've got a parish council, we've got residents,
lots of positive stuff coming out,
and a real willingness, indeed amongst us as a committee,
to see this through,
to go back to what Councillor Lem Wilkins said,
you know, the scales, on the one hand to drive past
in a few years time and to see the thing, the site falling down.
Yes, that would be a travesty.
But almost as big a travesty as for something to appear on there
that is not in line with the advice
that we're trying to give this applicant.
I don't think I can recall an application
where there appears to have been a really good attempt by us
to try and get this to the end point.
And so for me, it's a case of not no, it's a case of no, not yet.
I would love to see the applicant come back,
listen to what has been said by you,
in particular Justin and Martin.
Both of you are really experienced officers.
Our desire to want them to come back
was something that is going to work,
because it is going to be there in perpetuity.
As one of my colleagues said,
he referred to the design code of Arlington Row.
I have the privilege of Arlington Row being in my ward.
Yes, Arlington Row is exceptional,
and that is not what we are talking about here.
But I really do think we've got to listen to what Justin said because it's there forever
afterwards and we have a responsibility.
But we all want to see this developed as a site, don't we?
Thank you for bringing it here because it's quite refreshing to come and have the opportunity
to talk about something so significant.
To quote Councillor Harris, I know Temple Guiding really, really well and it is nestled,
it's beautiful and let's hope we can achieve something that will enhance that beauty.
Thank you.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:56:32
Kent O 'Sellbourn.
Councillor Gary Selwyn - 0:56:35
Thank you, Chair.
You know, I can totally understand and support why it came to committee.
I thought the board member was absolutely right to bring it to us and the summary was
accurate and the report gives a very clear understanding of the balancing arguments here,
Clearly, replacing redundant buildings is going to be nothing but a positive for the
people that live there and I can understand and support that.
It is quite rare that you get the level of support from the parish council that we have
heard and indeed there is not a huge list of the public objecting to it either.
So that is in itself quite unusual.
The balancing arguments is that it does nothing for affordable housing in the district and
we have an affordability housing crisis.
It will do nothing for that.
I would imagine the two semis would probably be half a million pounds each anyway up there,
maybe 450.
I support the officer's view in terms of the actual look of it, that the Dutch barn is
associated well and blends in well.
The massing of the rest doesn't strike me as traditional farmyard buildings nor is it
in any way a traditional farmyard court area either.
It's a justification for putting some really quite significantly large houses on that site
to meet the financial viability concerns which of course I understand and accept as well.
It once again comes up with a sort of an approach,
a sort of a more traditional architecture.
I personally don't think it succeeds on those levels.
And for me, those are the balancing arguments.
Thank you.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:58:25
Thank you.
Councillor Harris.
Thank you.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:58:30
Well, I'm not quite sure why you do a pre -app
and then not take the advice that you're given,
because that's really the purpose of it.
So, a pre -app's been done.
Advice has been given by the person who defends our policies
to make sure that those policies are adhered to.
That person is ensuring that when we drive past it
in 15, 20 years, Tommy Danko,
oh my goodness, who allowed that to be put up at the back there
no matter what state the barn is in?
But we do want it to be built up.
So there is the message there.
I think if I was the, and I am not going to preempt this,
but if I was the developer, I would be going back and saying,
The bad news is that they have refused it,
but the good news is they do want us to build something here.
If we can just go and tweak it the way it was suggested
eight months, nine months ago, we have probably got this.
Although I wouldn't want to predetermine that.
So, good news and bad news.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:59:26
I would like to suggest that we follow the officer's recommendation
and refuse this application as it stands.
I support that.
Councillor Coleman.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:59:42
Thank you. Left and right.
I got them.
Yeah.
Yeah, I'm going to...
I'm not supportive of a refusal on this.
First of all, I'm sorry that we can't create some affordability for affordable housing here,
but I think that's fairly certain.
As things stand, I go by the rule
that nobody ever lost money building houses
in the Cotswolds.
I might be wrong.
Somebody might have done.
I think it comes down to a subjective judgment
on appearance.
And I was, and in passing, that the fact
that this is an incredibly professional piece of work
by the parish council to have raised a lot of concerns
and had enough of them met by their subsequent discussions
and the amended plans that they refer to in their submission to have had enough of their
concerns met that they have become not so much concerned as party supporters.
And I'm looking at what I believe to be the reasonable reproduction on I think page 57
in very small print, which shows the irregular, shall we say, arrangement of these new buildings
that are the subject of disagreement.
For me, I am thinking, if there isn't anything else in the Cotswolds at the moment, which
looks like that, which is a fair comment and which I think was what we heard from our conservation
officer, is that a bad thing?
They do reflect with that underpass arch, there are elements that clearly reflect that
this used to be in agricultural use.
They've clearly got the necessary solar panels, they've clearly satisfied modern standards,
and over time I don't believe these are going to look as ugly as some of the things that
were built in the 60s and 70s and 80s in our villages.
So they passed a basic test for me of are they actually ugly as opposed to irregular.
And I can even see a justification because when you're doing a Dutch barn conversion
and what you have got is regularity, if not boredom,
and therefore there is a contrast there
that I think is acceptable.
So I am certainly not prepared,
having listened carefully, to refuse this.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:02:03
Thank you. Councillor Foltz.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:02:05
I just want to forgive my ignorance after so long,
but if the options are approve or refuse,
bearing in mind that there has been this dialogue,
Can I just have some guidance on deferment?
Does deferment only apply when it's the same application but you've got to go away and
tweak a few things?
Or is this a case where one could propose a deferment for the application?
Which sends out the signal I think Councillor Harris and I want to send out, which is come
back with something that works.
I just don't know how far away we are and whether deferment is something we could offer.
Yes, but that was a pre -app, wasn't it?
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:02:52
Councillor David Fowles - 1:02:52
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:02:55
Just with some advice.
Is it straight approved?
I can give you my memory,
which is this is what we did with the controversial hospital
in an AOMB in Tethbury.
We did?
I think it was a deferment and they came back
and we approved it.
It's sufficient improvement.
And that's exactly the example I'm thinking of.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:03:11
It still remained controversial.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:03:12
Not that I'm suggesting this should be a hospital.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:03:15
Richard?
Can we defer it?
Well, I mean, all options are available to members.
Ordinarily, for deferments, it's more useful for us to have very specific instructions about defined matters that need to have answers or need to have very specific changes.
It's not as black and white in this instance that members could define
Officer - 1:03:37
what those matters are so that officers could be confident that we've addressed it.
The advice that we'd given would be that we should determine the application and the applicant
can engage in pre -application discussions with us to get over that final hurdle.
But ultimately it's a matter for the agency to...
No, but what I'm trying to say is there's a lot of time, a lot of
Councillor David Fowles - 1:03:57
money, a lot of investment by the Parish Council and the developer and our officers.
I don't know if by refusing it I have to go back and pay another fee, etc, whether deferment
is a more viable route for us to...
I can't think of the wording at this moment in time.
I know that Councillor Harris will, but if I could propose deferment I would, if I got
a seconder.
Could I...
Councillor Harris.
Just briefly, before you, Councillor Harris, I'm having a little difficulty in imagining
Officer - 1:04:33
what the instruction would be. If the instruction is defer it until officers are happy with
the design, it would... I mean, how long is a piece of string? It's a
Councillor David Fowles - 1:04:44
tricky one. Sorry.
Well, what I was going to ask was between you. Do you have a... I'm not saying... I'm
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:04:56
Do you feel there's enough instruction for the applicant to go away and say,
oh yeah, we understand, we definitely know what they don't want,
we understand what they do want.
Now I'm not looking behind me to see if they're nodding,
but I wonder whether you've provided enough guidance for them to come back
with something that we would smile on or our advisors would smile on.
Officer - 1:05:19
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:05:19
Does that identify that decision, whether we can do that or not?
Officer - 1:05:21
I think the advice that I provided is quite general and I don't think it's a tick box exercise that do X, Y and Z and it's sorted.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:05:33
Councillor Fowls please.
Councillor Ian Watson - 1:05:38
Thank you, Chair. I don't think we can defer, this committee can defer because we don't know what the applicant wants.
Is he going to walk away? Is he going to change his plans?
We can't answer that question.
I think it's either we permit it or refuse it.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:06:01
Okay, so Jude.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:06:06
I think perhaps, I mean, I'm looking at the pre -app
and the drawings there are such a, it's beautiful.
It's absolutely beautiful.
And I would have thought that if there's something wrong with that
than the applicant would have been told that at the time.
But I suggest that we just move on and go to the vote.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:06:24
On which we can.
Okay, anything new, different?
Councillor Foulds?
Councillor David Fowles - 1:06:32
Well, the very fact that I've introduced into the minutes
and the applicant's here, or the agent is here,
that we're trying our best to find a solution to this,
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:06:40
that's sufficient for me,
if it's a case of approval or refuse.
No more comments. We'll now go to the vote.
The office's recommendation is to refuse.
We now go to the vote, please.
That is 8 -4 and 2 against, Chair.
OK, thank you. So that application is refused.
Thank you.

9 Sites Inspection Briefing

Move back now to the agenda briefly.
Size inspections briefing.
If it is one, it will be on 8th January and it will involve myself, Councillor Cawle, Mark Harris, Andrew McLean, Gary Selwyn and Michael Bann.
Licensing Committee. I think that's already been cancelled, hasn't it?
I'm pleased to report it has been cancelled, Chair.
That's cancelled.

10 Licensing Sub-Committee

Okay then, so just before we close the meeting, I'd like to wish you all a very Merry Christmas
and a Happy New Year.
I wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Merry New Year.
While we're still on live.
Yes.
Okay then Richard.
Officer - 1:07:52
Sorry Joe, I might have stuck this in at the beginning.
Just to advise members that following a...
Hang on a second members.
Just to advise members that following a successful recruitment campaign, the permanent...
My role is interim development management manager, which I never managed to say properly
except for that instance.
We undertook a recruitment campaign and we have appointed roughly the equivalent of that
post in a permanent capacity who will be called the head of planning services and that will
be Harrison Bowley from within the department.
Thank you.
Harry will begin the role from some point in January,
so the next committee is likely to have Harry in his seat.
Webcast Finished - 1:08:44
He's been given a good job.

There are currently no votes to display