Planning and Licensing Committee - Wednesday 15 January 2025, 2:00pm - Cotswold District Council Webcasting

Planning and Licensing Committee
Wednesday, 15th January 2025 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 David Fowles
  5. Councillor Gary Selwyn
  6. Councillor Michael Vann
  7. Councillor Mark Harris
  8. Councillor Dilys Neill
  9. Councillor Daryl Corps
  10. Councillor Ian Watson
  11. Councillor Ray Brassington
  12. Officer
  13. Officer
  14. Officer
  15. Nickie Mackenzie-Daste, Officer
  16. Kira Thompson, Officer
  17. Helen Blundell, Legal Services
  18. Councillor Ray Brassington
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Gary Selwyn
  2. Councillor Ray Brassington
Share this agenda point
  1. Councillor Ray Brassington
  2. 04. Approve Minutes of the meeting held on 11 December
    Status: In progress
  3. Councillor Ray Brassington
  4. 04. Approve Minutes of the meeting held on 11 December
    Status: Ended
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Public Speaker
  2. Councillor Ray Brassington
  3. Public Speaker
  4. Councillor Ray Brassington
  5. Public Speaker
  6. Councillor Ray Brassington
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Slide 1
  2. Officer
  3. Slide 2
  4. Slide 3
  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. Councillor Ray Brassington
  18. Slide 16
  19. Councillor Ray Brassington
  20. Objector
  21. Slide 17
  22. Slide 18
  23. Slide 19
  24. Slide 20
  25. Councillor Ray Brassington
  26. Objector
  27. Slide 21
  28. Slide 22
  29. Slide 23
  30. Supporter
  31. Slide 24
  32. Slide 25
  33. Slide 26
  34. Slide 27
  35. Slide 28
  36. Councillor Ray Brassington
  37. Supporter
  38. Ward Member
  39. Councillor Ray Brassington
  40. Councillor David Fowles
  41. Officer
  42. Slide 29
  43. Slide 30
  44. Slide 31
  45. Councillor David Fowles
  46. Officer
  47. Councillor Ray Brassington
  48. Councillor Dilys Neill
  49. Officer
  50. Councillor Dilys Neill
  51. Officer
  52. Councillor Ray Brassington
  53. Councillor Daryl Corps
  54. Officer
  55. Councillor Ray Brassington
  56. Officer
  57. Councillor Ray Brassington
  58. Officer
  59. Slide 32
  60. Councillor Ian Watson
  61. Slide 33
  62. Slide 34
  63. Councillor Gary Selwyn
  64. Officer
  65. Slide 35
  66. Slide 36
  67. Slide 37
  68. Slide 38
  69. Slide 39
  70. Slide 40
  71. Slide 41
  72. Slide 42
  73. Slide 43
  74. Slide 44
  75. Councillor Ray Brassington
  76. Officer
  77. Councillor Mark Harris
  78. Slide 45
  79. Officer
  80. Slide 46
  81. Slide 47
  82. Slide 48
  83. Councillor Mark Harris
  84. Officer
  85. Councillor Mark Harris
  86. Councillor Ray Brassington
  87. Councillor Michael Vann
  88. Slide 49
  89. Slide 50
  90. Slide 51
  91. Slide 52
  92. Slide 53
  93. Slide 54
  94. Slide 55
  95. Slide 56
  96. Officer
  97. Councillor Ray Brassington
  98. Councillor Dilys Neill
  99. Officer
  100. Slide 57
  101. Councillor Ray Brassington
  102. Councillor David Fowles
  103. Slide 58
  104. Slide 59
  105. Officer
  106. Councillor Ray Brassington
  107. Officer
  108. Councillor Ray Brassington
  109. Councillor Ray Brassington
  110. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  111. Councillor Ray Brassington
  112. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  113. Slide 60
  114. Slide 61
  115. Slide 62
  116. Councillor Mark Harris
  117. Councillor Ray Brassington
  118. Councillor David Fowles
  119. Slide 63
  120. Councillor Ray Brassington
  121. Councillor David Fowles
  122. Slide 64
  123. 08. 24/00002/AREA - Tree Preservation Order - Confirm TPO
    Status: In progress
  124. Slide 65
  125. Slide 66
  126. Slide 67
  127. Slide 68
  128. Slide 69
  129. Slide 70
  130. Slide 71
  131. 08. 24/00002/AREA - Tree Preservation Order - Confirm TPO
    Status: Ended
  132. Councillor Ray Brassington
Share this agenda point
  1. Officer
  2. Councillor Ray Brassington
  3. 09. To defer consideration of the application 24/00386/FUL, Woodleigh
    Status: In progress
  4. Councillor David Fowles
  5. Slide 72
  6. Slide 73
  7. Councillor David Fowles
  8. Slide 74
  9. Slide 75
  10. Slide 76
  11. Slide 77
  12. Slide 78
  13. Slide 79
  14. Councillor Ray Brassington
  15. 09. To defer consideration of the application 24/00386/FUL, Woodleigh
    Status: Ended
  16. Councillor David Fowles
  17. Slide 80
  18. Councillor Ray Brassington
  19. Slide 81
  20. Councillor David Fowles
  21. Councillor Ray Brassington
  22. Councillor David Fowles
  23. Helen Blundell, Legal Services
  24. Councillor Ray Brassington
Share this agenda point
  1. Slide 82
  2. Slide 83
  3. Officer
  4. Slide 84
  5. Slide 85
  6. Slide 86
  7. Slide 87
  8. Slide 88
  9. Slide 89
  10. Slide 90
  11. Slide 91
  12. Slide 92
  13. Councillor Ray Brassington
  14. Slide 93
  15. Slide 94
  16. Officer
  17. Slide 95
  18. Slide 96
  19. Slide 97
  20. Slide 98
  21. Slide 99
  22. Slide 100
  23. Slide 101
  24. Slide 102
  25. Slide 103
  26. Slide 104
  27. Slide 105
  28. Slide 106
  29. Slide 107
  30. Slide 108
  31. Slide 109
  32. Councillor Ray Brassington
  33. Slide 110
  34. Councillor Ray Brassington
  35. Supporter
  36. Councillor Ray Brassington
  37. Supporter
  38. Councillor Ray Brassington
  39. Supporter
  40. Ward Member
  41. Slide 111
  42. Slide 112
  43. Slide 113
  44. Slide 114
  45. Slide 115
  46. Slide 116
  47. Slide 117
  48. Slide 118
  49. Slide 119
  50. Slide 120
  51. Slide 121
  52. Councillor Ray Brassington
  53. Councillor David Fowles
  54. Slide 122
  55. Slide 123
  56. Officer
  57. Slide 124
  58. Slide 125
  59. Slide 126
  60. Slide 127
  61. Slide 128
  62. Slide 129
  63. Slide 130
  64. Slide 131
  65. Slide 132
  66. Slide 133
  67. Slide 134
  68. Slide 135
  69. Slide 136
  70. Councillor David Fowles
  71. Officer
  72. Slide 137
  73. Councillor Ray Brassington
  74. Councillor Ian Watson
  75. Slide 138
  76. Slide 139
  77. Officer
  78. Slide 140
  79. Slide 141
  80. Slide 142
  81. Slide 143
  82. Councillor Ray Brassington
  83. Councillor Mark Harris
  84. Slide 144
  85. Slide 145
  86. Slide 146
  87. Slide 147
  88. Slide 148
  89. Slide 149
  90. Slide 150
  91. Slide 151
  92. Slide 152
  93. Slide 153
  94. Slide 154
  95. Slide 155
  96. Slide 156
  97. Slide 157
  98. Slide 158
  99. Slide 159
  100. Slide 160
  101. Slide 161
  102. Slide 162
  103. Slide 163
  104. Councillor Ray Brassington
  105. Officer
  106. Councillor Michael Vann
  107. Councillor Ray Brassington
  108. Slide 164
  109. Councillor Michael Vann
  110. Officer
  111. Councillor Michael Vann
  112. Councillor Ray Brassington
  113. Councillor Ray Brassington
  114. Councillor Gary Selwyn
  115. Officer
  116. Slide 165
  117. Slide 166
  118. Slide 167
  119. Slide 168
  120. Councillor Gary Selwyn
  121. Officer
  122. Slide 169
  123. Slide 170
  124. Slide 171
  125. Councillor Ray Brassington
  126. Councillor Ian Watson
  127. Officer
  128. Slide 172
  129. Slide 173
  130. Councillor Ray Brassington
  131. Councillor Mark Harris
  132. Slide 174
  133. Officer
  134. Slide 175
  135. Slide 176
  136. Slide 177
  137. Slide 178
  138. Councillor Ray Brassington
  139. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  140. Officer
  141. Councillor Ray Brassington
  142. Officer
  143. Councillor Ray Brassington
  144. Councillor Dilys Neill
  145. Slide 179
  146. Slide 180
  147. Officer
  148. Councillor Dilys Neill
  149. Officer
  150. Slide 181
  151. Slide 182
  152. Slide 183
  153. Councillor Ray Brassington
  154. Councillor David Fowles
  155. Slide 184
  156. Slide 185
  157. Slide 186
  158. Slide 187
  159. Councillor Ray Brassington
  160. Councillor David Fowles
  161. Slide 188
  162. Slide 189
  163. Slide 190
  164. Councillor Ray Brassington
  165. Officer
  166. Slide 191
  167. Councillor Ray Brassington
  168. Councillor Mark Harris
  169. Slide 192
  170. Slide 193
  171. Slide 194
  172. Slide 195
  173. Slide 196
  174. Councillor Ray Brassington
  175. Slide 197
  176. Councillor Mark Harris
  177. Slide 198
  178. Slide 199
  179. Councillor Ray Brassington
  180. Councillor Mark Harris
  181. Councillor Ray Brassington
  182. Councillor Gary Selwyn
  183. Councillor Ray Brassington
  184. Councillor Ian Watson
  185. Slide 200
  186. Slide 201
  187. Councillor Ray Brassington
  188. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  189. Councillor Ray Brassington
  190. Councillor Patrick Coleman
  191. Slide 202
  192. Slide 203
  193. Councillor David Fowles
  194. Slide 204
  195. Slide 205
  196. Councillor Ray Brassington
  197. Slide 206
  198. Slide 207
  199. Slide 208
  200. Slide 209
  201. Slide 210
  202. Slide 211
  203. Slide 212
  204. Slide 213
  205. Officer
  206. Councillor Ray Brassington
  207. 10. 24/02773/FUL - Manor Farm, Chedworth - Approve with conditions against Officer recommendation
    Status: In progress
  208. Councillor David Fowles
  209. Slide 214
  210. Slide 215
  211. Slide 216
  212. Councillor Ray Brassington
  213. Slide 217
  214. Councillor David Fowles
  215. Councillor Ray Brassington
  216. 10. 24/02773/FUL - Manor Farm, Chedworth - Approve with conditions against Officer recommendation
    Status: Ended
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished
Slide selection

1 Apologies

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:00:00
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:00:04
Okay take your seats please. We're about to start. Happy New Year to everybody.
Right good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of Cotswold District Council's
Planning and Licensing Committee. My name is Councillor Ray Brassington and I am
chair of this committee. Members, officers, members of public in attendance are
reminding that this meeting has been live streamed and recorded on the
microphones on while speaking and turn them off so they can be seen and heard.
I would like to remind everyone present at the chamber today to turn off their mobile
phones or to put it on silent.
I would also request that the public remain quiet during proceedings and avoid interaction
with committee members if there is an adjournment.
If you would like to leave the meeting halfway 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 the meeting.
Should anything go wrong with electronic voting we resort to the normal show of hands.
We're not expecting a fire on to sound so if it does please leave the building as to
where you came in and into the car park.
The procedure the committee uses for our planning officers provide the committee with any updates
on the application along with their 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 registered that they are allowed up to three minutes to speak.
Once the three minutes is complete, they will be instructed to cease their remarks.
The board member will then address the committee and they will have up to five minutes.
After this, our councilors are able to ask technical questions of the officers.
So I'd like to move on now to introductions.
I've introduced myself, so the rest of the members.
Thank you, Chair.
My name is Patrick Coleman.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:02:17
I'm the Councillor for Stratton and I'm Vice Chair of the Committee.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:02:24
Good afternoon my name is Councillor David Fowls. I'm the ward member for the
Colton Valley. Good afternoon Councillor Gary Selwyn, Sir
Councillor Gary Selwyn - 0:02:34
ancestor, Watermore Ward. Good afternoon I'm Michael Van, Fairford
Councillor Michael Vann - 0:02:38
North.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:02:42
Hello, Councillor Mark Harris, Abbey Ward, Syremchester.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:02:47
Councillor Dylice Neill, Astowe Ward in the north of the district.
Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:02:55
Councillor Darragh Corr, the Mortyny Marsh West, also in the north of the district.
Councillor Ian Watson - 0:03:01
Councillor Ian Watson, Tepidtown Ward.
Thank you. Now I ask officers to introduce themselves. Start with you
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:03:06
then, Richard,
please.
Officer - 0:03:10
Hello, I'm Richard McEustrom, I'm the interim development management manager.
Good afternoon, I'm Harrison Burley, I'm the head of planning
Officer - 0:03:16
services.
Officer - 0:03:22
Good afternoon, I'm Justin Hobbs, one of the three officers at Cotswold District Council.
Nickie Mackenzie-Daste, Officer - 0:03:29
Good afternoon, Nicky McKenzie -Das, senior dem services officer.
Kira Thompson, Officer - 0:03:36
Good afternoon, Kiera Thompson, Democratic Services, Worcester.
Helen Blundell, Legal Services - 0:03:42
Good afternoon, Helen Blandell, Solicitor and Interim Head of Legal Services.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:03:47
Thank you. We will now move on to apologies. Have we received any apologies?
Yes, we have apologies from Councillor Julia Judd and Councillor Andrew McLean.
Thank you. Do we have any substitute members?
No, we don't.
No, okay. Declarations of Interest. Do any members have any declarations? Councillor

3 Declarations of Interest

Councillor Gary Selwyn - 0:04:07
Sower. Thank you, Chair. Yes, I recognised Robert
Darwin at the back there, although shamefully I had to ask how I knew him. It turns out
he works literally over the road from my house and he is my vet and I strongly recommend
him as a vet. Thank you.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:04:26
No? Okay then, we'll go on to the minutes of the last meeting.
Councillor Fouts?

4 Minutes

No, I was getting it.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:04:37
Yes. Any comments on the minutes, please?
If they're all accurate, can somebody propose them then, please?
Councillor Harris, seconded by Councillor Sowen.
We now vote on the minutes.
Please, ready to vote on the minutes.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:05:16
Chair's announcements.

5 Chair's Announcements

I haven't got any public questions.
Do we have any public questions?

6 Public questions

Yes?
I think we should go to announce that there's an item not being taken.
Well, the plan application. Yeah.
Yeah, I'll come to that later. Okay.
Public Speaker - 0:06:08
David Hindle from TETBRI.
About, it was just about a year ago,
I think the majority of people in Tepary
were very grateful that planning permission
was resolved to be granted
for the new healthcare centre and residential.
And it's really, it's kind of an odd thing,
but it's really to thank the new head of planning
that he stayed that through and also through the more importantly through
section 106 agreement which took an awful long time so I mean it's good a
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:06:51
Public Speaker - 0:06:52
question because I thought it was relevant to actually acknowledge
something so so the question is given the new position which Harrison has he
will still have a caseload, one of which
is the approval of the conditions on the health care
center.
That contains two elements.
One is the prior to commencement,
and then there's another set of conditions
which relate to details.
It's good that things have moved on.
But the question is really that committee
will allow Harrison time in order to allow him to deal with applications and
in particular the one in Tepry to give it a priority given that it took a year
to wrap up the section 106 agreement so it's kind of not really a question it's
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:07:59
more a request that priority is given. Do you want to say anything Harrison?
Public Speaker - 0:08:03
Only briefly, there are two applications in, I'm in regular dialogue already with the developers,
so yes, it will be something I look to continue to.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:08:11
Okay, thank you.
Thank you for indulging me.
Right. Any more public questions?
No.
Members questions?
No.

7 Member questions

Right, we'll go on to the first application then.
This is for a tree preservation order.

8 Tree Preservation Order - 24/00002/AREA

The ward affected is Fosbridge, the Council member is Councillor Cunningham, the Councillor
was Justin Hobbs and the purpose of this is to consider comments of objection and to support
to the making of a tree preservation order.
And the recommendation is that the Planning and Licensing Committee resolves to confirm
the tree preservation order.
So I will now pass you over to Justin.
Thank you.
Officer - 0:09:01
Thank you, Chair. I don't have anything further to add to my report, but if it will help members
of the committee, I will explain and summarise the situation as follows.
So a committee today is being asked to consider the making of a TPO at Upper Town House in
Longborough. Thorough consideration should be given to the justification for making of
the TPO as well as the grounds for objections and any other representations.
My recommendation to committee is that it resolves to confirm the TPO.
So just to give you some background, this slide shows the site affected by the TPO.
This is prior to a permitted housing development, more about which I will come on to shortly.
The site encompasses both the blue and the red area on the image on the left.
The image on the right is an aerial photograph before the development.
The site is on the eastern edge of the village of Longborough.
It is in an elevated location, clearly visible from the main road into the village from the
east and from within the village.
and there is a public footpath, a well -used public footpath, along the eastern boundary of the site.
The site was formerly a detached post -war dwelling set in extensive ground,
you can see there, with mature trees through the centre of the site and around the edge of the site.
This slide and image shows the consent of development within the red area of the site.
You can see it highlights the trees and groups of trees throughout the site and the wider
site to the south of the main area of development.
In July of last year a complaint was made to the council about tree and shrub removal
along the western edge of the development there.
About whether this tree and shrub removal was required in order to implement the planning
consent.
This is still the subject of our ongoing enforcement investigation and may be resolved through
a compliance application, so I would urge the committee today to focus on the matter
which is the TPO.
I wouldn't want to influence or prejudice the ongoing enforcement investigation.
Suffice to say though, the complaint triggered officers to visit the site.
Whilst on site it became apparent that there were other tree related concerns across the whole site
and also combined with the public amenity value of the trees across the site ultimately resulted in this TPO being made.
The following three slides attempt to give members an idea of the composition of the site in relation to the development.
trees across the site and the issues that are combined in the TPO being made.
So this slide shows the site benefits from a range of tree species.
They're predominantly native species and many of them are clearly tall and visually prominent.
So on the right hand side of the next slide.
On the right -hand side of this slide, there are two pictures which exemplify some of the
issues of concern which led to the TPOBMA.
You have an area there, the top right -hand side, you can see that the area between the
trees on the left -hand side and the trees on the right -hand side are being accessed
by heavy machinery.
According to the consent of development, this should not have happened, that area should
fenced off. Compaction of soil whilst not visually it doesn't look like it has
much impact as a digger tearing off a branch the compaction of soil damage the
roots beneath the soil leading to more long -term damage to the trees and
ultimately could lead to death which is why it's important that that area should
have been fenced off with no activity related to the development going on in
there whatsoever. The photo at the bottom shows a tree that was felled in the
wider area, the side of the area to the south. There's nothing illegal about
this. The area is not in a conservation area. I think it
highlighted to officers that because it's not in a conservation area, not
protected by a preservation order, trees could be removed without any
record pens without any thought. The photo in the bottom left hand side of the slide
there shows some protective fencing between trees to be retained and the
development ongoing on site. Unfortunately the fencing isn't adequate, it's on
movable bases and you can see that there are some fencing panels on the ground.
The slide in the top left -hand corner shows mounds of soil which have been removed from
the area of development and dumped on the wider part of the site to the south.
There's no, I'm not aware that this is illegal or not allowed, but the issue is soil dumping
around trees can damage tree roots and therefore long -term damage to the trees.
This is the final slide.
This is in October.
Again, top right -hand corner, you've got that area where heavy plant machines are continuing
to go down.
You can see the rutting and the issue of the degradation of the soil there on the bottom
right -hand corner.
The photograph, the centre and the bottom is of a swamp cypress which is an unusual
tree, not a particularly common tree.
This is outside of the main area of development but there is soil being dumped there, there
are activities associated with development which could be harmful to that tree.
And the photograph in the top left hand corner, again this is outside of the main development
side and there is some rudimentary fencing around the tree there but it's
it's still inadequate there are still potentially damaging effects upon
the trees there. So on the back of all that on the 27th of August a TPO was
was made. The TPO is an area TPO which is unusual in that the council tends to
try and make a TPO on individuals and groups of trees rather than an area TPO.
That means that as of the 27th of August of this year every tree that is alive
and growing in that area is protected.
Prior to the making of the TPO, as the Government advises, officers undertook a TPO appraisal.
Cotswold District Council uses its own form and you can see that in Appendix C of my report.
It's self -explanatory but it does assess relevant criteria such as public visibility, amenity
value and our bar culture value and the assessment concluded that the TPO was
expedient to make. Given the ongoing development of site and the issues that
have discussed relating to laps tree protection the ongoing enforcement case
there was an urgency to protect trees and that is why we decided to make an
area order rather than individuals groups occasionally woodlands. You have
to when you make a TPO you have to clearly state the reasons for making the
So those are the reasons there that would have been on the notice that went out with the TPO part of the site is currently
being developed residents have expressed concerns about the trees being removed in order to ensure
full consideration of the public means value of the trees on the site in any future decisions
Regarding their future a TPO is considered expedient
So once the TPO is made the council has six months maximum of six months to either confirm the TPO
not confirm the TPO or
or confirm the TPO with modifications.
Following the making of the TPO, there is a four -week statutory period
for written representations to be submitted to the council about the TPO
and then the council has an obligation to thoroughly consider these
before deciding whether or not to confirm the TPO.
Within the time period, five individual representations
and a petition with 57 signatories was received in support of the TPO.
but they are summarised in section 216 of my report.
The site owner and an agent acting for the site owner submitted objection representations.
I have summarised and responded to the objections in section 3 of my report, but to assist members
I will go over them for you here now.
The first grounds for objection was it is unreasonable for the Council to grant permission
and seek to frustrate its implementation with the TPO applying to trees that must be removed
to enable it.
My response, the Council's response is the TPO was not made to frustrate the implementation
of a planning consent and it does not prevent the removal of trees required to implement
the planning consent on site.
At the time of surveying the TPO, most trees required to be removed to implement the planning
consent had already been removed.
However, given the uncertainty around the removal of trees around the western boundary,
which I have said is subject to an ongoing investigation, the failure of the development
to adequately protect other trees on site shown as being retained, a lack of an agreed
landscaping plan as such, a TPO protecting all the trees was considered expedient.
The second ground to the objection states that the TPO fails one of the two statutory
to detect expediency and there is a specific exception within the governing regulations
for works necessary to implement a full planning permission.
So members for the avoidance of doubt, this TPO cannot and does not seek to protect trees
that may need works, including removal, to implement the planning consent.
But again, due to the reoccurring issues that I have already mentioned, the TPO is assessed
to be expedient.
The making of the TPO or the making of any TPO does not prevent future applications for
works.
They would be treated on their merits if and when they are received.
The third ground on the objection states the TPO also fails secondary statutory test amenity.
It fails to test this because it covers explicitly all trees or whatever species regardless of
condition or quality and with precisely zero systematic assessment of their amenity value.
We disagree with this.
As I have said, the Council has developed a structured mythology for assessing the amenity
value, which is our TPO appraisal form.
A copy of this is in Appendix B. I would also say a significant number of signatures on
the petition in support of the TPO and the individual support and representations indicates
that there is a public support for the protection of trees on site and the TPO brings a reasonable
degree of public benefit presently and into the future.
Another ground for the objection was the nature of the TPO which has been applied indiscriminately
as an area designation across the whole site.
The Council had ample information to make a discriminating TPO which would list individuals,
schools, groups, et cetera.
In response to this, we would say that the Council has a duty under section 197 of the
Town and Country Planning Act to make provision for the preservation and planting of trees.
The Council did receive a tree survey in relation to the development.
However, officers were satisfied at the time that the TPO was not needed as the tree removal
was minimal and there was a condition attached to the permission that required adequate protection
for the trees to be retained.
As I have since shown and discussed, unfortunately it would appear in certain areas across the
site this protection has not been adhered to.
Once the consented development has been completed and taken into account any potential future
changes in the whole site. The Council, we do intend to reassess the trees on
site and then modify or vary the TPO to individual trees and groups or another
alternative is to revoke the entire TPO and make new TPOs which would allow for
any trees planted as part of a landscaping scheme to be protected as
well. So in summary I would say there was and there are ongoing concerns in
relation to tree protection and retention across the whole site.
In addition to the ongoing concerns, the CPO's suitability assessment and public support
indicates that the CPO is expedient.
The CPO does not and cannot prevent the removal of trees to implement the planning permission.
The CPO does not prevent the removal of trees in the future, but it does ensure that full
consideration of the public community value of the trees on site is fully considered in
any future decisions.
So in large of these reasons, my recommendation is to confirm the TPO.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:23:33
I now invite public speakers to come forward, please.
I've got Julian Forbes, Jonathan Rose and Councillor Cunningham.
If you could take your seats at the appropriate spot.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:24:15
Okay then, so we'll start with Julian Forbes, please.
Objector - 0:24:33
Mr Chairman, thank you for your time.
I'm sorry, I do apologise. My apologies, I was confused.
I'm not here today to object to the principle of a tree preservation order being applied
to retained trees on this site, many of which do indeed deserve protection. Instead I would
like to touch on a couple of matters within the officer report, pages 11 to 20 of the
original consent which for the sake of convenience we can call Scheme A and
then as subsequently approved on amendment Scheme B. It is this Scheme B
that has currency and the layout is found on page 23 of your bundle. The
objection to the order boils down really to two simple points. Firstly the nature
of the order as Mr. Hobbs has noted which protects all trees regardless of
their condition, quality or public visibility.
Straightforwardly, this is highly problematic
in terms of good management and husbandry going forwards
and is an unnecessarily blunt instrument,
given that there is the detailed tree survey before the council.
But secondly, and most importantly,
there is a lack of any proper analysis
of the relationship of the trees thereby protected to scheme
B, the consenting scheme.
So, the second point means that a conflict has arisen between the tree preservation order
and the need to remove certain trees along the site's western boundary in order to implement
a Scheme B, specifically to do with level changes and retaining walls which are approved
by virtue of Scheme B, which can only be built by excavation near to the trees, which started
before the TPO was made.
This difficulty is amplified significantly if the order is confirmed in its present form,
and at the moment work in the affected area of the site cannot at present proceed,
because the developer considers themselves at risk to do so.
Part of my purpose in being here today, seeking modification of the order, as I will come to in a moment,
is in the hope that this can avoid the developer having to pursue other avenues to seek redress from the Council
if its consent is frustrated.
Most importantly, however, the case officer's report
contains, unfortunately, a serious error of fact.
This has the potential to misadvice the committee.
If you could please turn to section 5 on page 19 of the reports bundle,
you will see the heading, alternative options,
and you will see you are being presented with a binary choice,
which is to follow the officer recommendation, confirm the order,
or not to confirm the order.
However, by provisions of regulations well known to the Tree Officer,
there is of course a third option that should have been put before you,
and this option in fact is to confirm the Tree Preservation Order with modifications.
I accept you cannot do that today.
The Tree Officer...
Your time is running out I'm afraid.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:27:56
We did allow extra time for the interruption.
Has run out?
Yes.
Oh, I see. Sorry.
No, that's fine.
That's okay. Thank you.
The next speaker is Jonathan Rose.
You have three minutes.
Thank you.
Objector - 0:28:09
My name is Jonathan Rose.
I've lived in Longborough for the past 35 years.
I'm a qualified landscape architect with over 50 years
experience as a consultant, both in private practice and
local authority.
The Mackenzie Miller Planning Application in 2021 included
reports from their own experts, namely arboricultural,
ecological and landscape and visual consultants.
Within all three reports, the existing mature vegetation across the whole site is identified as being of significant value in landscape and many sea and ecological terms.
In particular, the belt of trees and shrubs on the western boundary of the site are to be retained and protected during construction,
as this area forms an important part of the biodiversity and visual
Supporter - 0:28:53
amenity of the village.
The vegetation also provides privacy for both the existing houses and the new development.
The site of the site directly adjoins the conservation area of the village.
And the 50 year old mature trees are very important in its setting and contribute significantly to the landscape of the village and the Cotswolds AOMB.
These same experts reports also formed part of the 2024 application where the approved plans showed the trees being retained and protected along the boundary throughout the site.
However, contrary to the permission granted, the developer proceeded to fail a significant
number of mature healthy trees that their own experts stated should remain as valuable
elements.
The houses are virtually complete now, and as per the permission granted, therefore the
trees do not need to be removed to complete the development.
So why would the developers want these trees removed even though their own experts have
stated that they should remain as a valuable asset?
A further compliant application has been submitted by the developer on the 10th of January 2025,
showing a revised landscape plan.
A totally unnecessary retaining wall is now proposed close to the existing conservation
area boundary.
This would require felling of all the remaining trees currently protected by the TPO in this
area simply to remove them from the gardens of the new houses.
Also, the construction of this wall could cause damage to existing adjacent properties.
It is that close.
Given the poor track record of the developer in following his own expert's advice, we
strongly urge that the TPO be made permanent in order to protect the trees on the existing
development site and those trees on the southern half of the land -holding which could be subject
to a further application in the future.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:30:52
Councillor Cunningham, you have five minutes.
If you need five minutes.
Supporter - 0:30:57
You'll be pleased to hear, Mr Chairman, that I don't need five minutes.
Ward Member - 0:31:01
Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, members of the committee.
I usually come to these meetings armed with a whole raft of rules and regulations
and different things that I think are pertinent.
And there are rules within our own local plan, EN5, EN6, that talk about the national landscape and the special landscape area.
And the new MPPF still has Chapter 15, Section 189, that talks about preserving national landscapes, because they're so important.
But I think this comes down to a much more fundamental question, really, which is protecting the natural environment.
I think nothing for me, anyway, represents a natural environment better than seeing a copse of trees or trees in an area.
I think it's important that the overall amenity that's provided by wooded areas and trees cannot be understated.
We saw in the pandemic just how much green open spaces can help with mental health.
And I think people seeing wooded areas gives a sense of well -being.
It does. I don't think that's really up for question.
So, removing large amounts of trees is something I think that the Council needs to have a real handle on.
I think it's something that we should always be heavily consulted on.
I think it's important, and I think the Officer did an excellent job in his report of addressing these problems.
This is not about stopping development.
This is about making sure that when development is done, and there are trees involved,
that there is full consultation and there is a full agreement about what can and cannot be done,
that helps to preserve the natural environment. I think it's as simple as that, really.
In terms of why we're looking for an area TPO, I think the officers also addressed that.
This was something where trees were being taken down.
and there was some confusion as to why they were, when it seemed as though they shouldn't
have been by the original plans.
So an area TPO was put in for expediency.
As the Office has already stated, it doesn't mean that going forward there can't be an
amended TPO that's put in that actually starts to single out particular areas or trees.
What's being agreed today is that the temporary TPO that was put in in August is now made
permanent, and which allows the Council going forward to have more consultation with the
developer to ensure that what's done on the site is in the best interests of everybody
involved.
The parish council fully supports the confirmation of this TPO.
Residents have been very clear to me as the ward member that they completely support this
TPO.
I think it really comes down to a case of understanding that we as a Council have a real commitment to ensure that the natural environment is, where possible, protected.
And that where there is development, it is done in a sympathetic way to the environment.
I think that is probably the shortest speech I have ever given.
Thank you very much for your time.
Thank you.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:34:10
Could the speakers now return to their places at the back of the room?
We will now move on to members' questions.
Councillor Fowls.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:34:26
I have three questions.
Firstly, the objector wasn't on the schedule.
Was that something you agreed?
Yes, it is.
OK.
My first question is,
and it may be just the way it's been presented to us,
The document tree preservation order signed by Rob Weaver on page 27 doesn't appear to have a signature saying it's been confirmed or not confirmed.
Is that correct?
So it's just a temporary order.
So this document, is this a temporary or is this the document that would get signed if we today make it official?
Precisely that, Councillor. As the officers explained, we make the provisional order and
then if you today confirm the order, it will be signed by Rob Weaver to confirm it. I'd
also like to raise a point about whether or not it can be confirmed with modifications.
The regulations are quite clear that you do have the power to confirm, not confirm, and
if you confirm it can be with or without modifications, and they can do that today, can't they? So,
Yes, so I'd like my advice on that recorded so that we're quite clear you've had proper
advice on that.
Thank you.
My main question to Justin though is the supporter referred to the fact that there was, unless
I misheard him, that there was a new planning application in 2025, is that correct?
And he said that all the photographs seem to have been taken before the properties were
built and the supporter, because I'm not familiar with the site, said that the houses have been
built around the trees that have got an area TPO on them.
Is that correct?
So are we here debating the bit confused
between what the objective was saying, which seemed to say
we can't develop this site because the trees are
in the way, and the supporter who turned around
and said the houses have been built around the trees
and that this is a, we're really talking about
a very new application to alter some of the landscaping.
Could you just clarify that for my benefit, please?
Thank you.
Officer - 0:36:31
So the application, bring it back up.
So that's consent of development for 2024.
Now attached to that permission of various conditions,
one of them is landscaping compliance condition,
which should hopefully deal with the issues of the trees along the western edge.
That will bottom out what is necessary to implement that condition, to implement that development.
The housing is more or less, I would say, finished.
So in October it was an advanced state.
And just to reiterate the point that if it is definitive that a tree has to be worked on or removed to implement that consent, it overrides the TPO.
I will come back also if I can come back to the point about varying the TPO modified.
Mr. Forbes says he is correct, that was an oversight, so I apologise to committee about
that.
You can confirm a TPO modified, so we would modify the TPO from an area order into individuals
and groups.
There aren't any woodlands on this side, so it wouldn't be woodland.
What we are suggesting is in effect we do that after the development has been completed
and after any sort of future site issues are resolved
or dealt with, we would then vary the order
into individuals and groups,
or revoke the order of main new ones.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:38:08
Is there a new application?
Maybe my hearing, I thought he said, the supporter,
that in January 2025 there was a new application submitted.
If so, it is not referred to in the report.
Officer - 0:38:24
There is an application to discharge conditions, that is the current live application that
Martin Perks is handling.
Just to clarify, I think what we are looking at on the screen, that is what the applicant's
representative referred to as option B. There have been two consents, first permission,
This is the second permission, Section 73, that reserve details to a landscaping scheme
and the current application is the applicant's attempt to discharge the details of that landscaping
scheme.
Would I be right, Justin?
The trees of concern are the ones on this consented drawing that are shown to remain
rather than ones that might be in the existing footprint of the building.
So there's none that officers would say directly interfere with the carrying out of the approved
development.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Neill.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:39:23
Yes, a couple of things.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:39:25
One that's been partially covered already.
So on this particular application, on the consent of development, one of the conditions,
I think it was condition 12 was to do with the retention of the trees.
Is that, so some of the things that have been done contrary to what was agreed, there had
to be a protected scheme of tree protection in?
Officer - 0:39:58
The problem we have with is the protection for trees to be retained on site.
Usually on a development site a tree protection plan is conditioned and it's
Harris style fencing usually on permanent basis and then the local
council is usually happy that we're satisfied the tree is going to be retained or
okay. We officers have gone to site in response to the enforcement complaint
and while we're there we've realized that there are other issues and that's...
Does that answer your question?
I think pretty much yes.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:40:33
So you're looking at whether there's
been sort of non -compliance, and then you're
looking at the other trees sort of slightly separately.
Is that reasonable to say that?
Yeah.
The other thing was something was mentioned about a retaining
wall, and that being the reason why trees needed to be removed.
One person said there was a need for a retaining wall,
and the other one, the supporter then said there wasn't.
Is the retaining wall part of the original plan or is it something that's become apparent as the building has progressed?
Officer - 0:41:08
There was a retaining wall broadly on the left -hand side, the western side of the thin part of the site.
In the original permission, the 2021 reference,
there was a slightly different retaining wall
in the option in scheme B,
so that the variation condition
that's slightly closer to the trees broadly
and perhaps slightly higher,
it's subtly different.
And then what's been observed on site
is slightly different to both of those.
So that's what is supposed to be shown
in the applications currently before officers,
but it's been a tricky evolution to get to this point.
Councillor Caulk.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:41:53
Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:41:56
Thank you. This relates a bit to what the TPO is as well in this instance.
I took my dog for a walk along the eastern side on Monday and it looked to me what you could see through the trees.
The houses look like they're pretty much up now.
The TPO, because it looks like there's a bit of disregard for the trees' health going on during this development,
when you see all the fencing not really being in place, you see mechanical machinery driving where it shouldn't be driving.
The TPO is also about protecting the trees during the rest of this construction, is that right?
The most appropriate way to protect trees to be retained on site during development
is through a condition which says you will put protective fencing here to protect the
Officer - 0:42:48
rooting zones of the trees and make sure that heavy plant machinery doesn't strike the trees,
break branches and etc.
The TPO, we've assessed, it's more for the future, let's ensure the wider site, our trees
on the wider site are fully considered and that's why the TPO has been made here.
We're not trying to stop and we cannot stop any consented development but it does give
us perhaps a stronger position if the agreed protection measures are not being adhered to.
Thank you.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:43:24
I've got four Councillors now wanting to speak.
There's my Councillor Watson.
Officer - 0:43:30
Thank you, Chair.
I'm looking at page 35, it's an email from Mr McKenzie dated the 27th of August 2024,
in which he states this blanket TPO unit is a complete and utter abuse of power.
Could I ask our planning colleagues if they consider this to be a total and utter abuse of power?
perhaps Alan as well
Thank you came to sell it
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:44:07
Officer - 0:44:08
Councillor Ian Watson - 0:44:13
Check the helpful questions from colleagues here my one remaining question it was referred to earlier on
If the TPO is modified
Who would agree that modification and what exactly is the time frame involved in any of those subsequent?
Councillor Gary Selwyn - 0:44:31
Officer - 0:44:34
modifications. Okay the modification is an officer would have to return to site
and then assess the individual trees and the group trees for their immunity value
and one of a better, if we could give the pun, we will cherry -pick the better trees
for example you can't protect a dead tree, lower quality trees, less visible
trees would not be worthy of a preservation order. We would then have to
change the schedule and the plan and return to committee to have that approved.
Because the TPO was made on 27 August, the TPO has to be confirmed by February, six months
from when it was made, so we haven't at the moment got time to do that, which is why we
are suggesting confirm the TPO as an area order and later on down the line we will vary
or a vote can remain.
Just highlighting that then, so if it is confirmed today,
is this review something that we would kick off
and we would initiate in a reasonable timeframe
or is it down to other people to request that that variation
or review takes place?
Sorry, I didn't quite hear you.
Are you asking for a timeframe of when the...
of the potential TPO, say we confirm the TPO, who would initiate any review of it? Would
it be us? Would it be in a certain time frame or do we wait until somebody requests us to
review it?
Okay. It would be down to officers. The government does recommend that local authorities continually
review their TPOs. We have some TPOs from 20, 30 years ago which are perhaps no longer
So it would be down to us.
I would suggest once the development is completed and if there are any future site changes on
the southern end of the site, that would be an appropriate time to vary or revoke and
remake the order.
Thank you.
Councillor Harris.
Thank you, chair.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:46:41
Officer - 0:46:41
I've got about three questions.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:46:48
So we have established that the developer can complete the development without this
affecting their progress.
Indeed it is pretty much done anyway, it looks like it.
The question I have is, was an arboricultural consultant involved in the application in
place do we know or a landscape or with a tree management plan and did we set in
conditions about how we should how they should manage that process? Yes as with
Officer - 0:47:22
the development of this this size we required a an arboricultural survey to
be submitted I think that the image we were looking at we were looking at there
would have been based upon that survey.
And thereafter, there's certainly the 21 consent
that there was condition attached to tree protection.
You will put a fence here to stop your digger
from accessing that area and damaging the tree.
So yes, the Narborough consult was involved.
I apologize.
Yeah, a bit slow today.
They made that point that they had, in fact,
submitted the information.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:47:56
So it's not the case that they could have inadvertently
done it, as I might do.
I don't know about the roots under there and so I go over.
They had an arboricultural consultant in place.
So am I right then that the reason why we're here today is that it's really the kind of slightly casual approach
to protecting the trees on the development, which actually spurred local residents to go,
hold on, something's not quite right here.
And had that not been the case, we probably wouldn't be here today.
Officer - 0:48:28
It certainly played a role, yes.
We do try to visit sites to ensure compliance with various conditions, but it certainly
played a role, yes.
It alerted officers to the problems there.
Thanks very much.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:48:42
My final question is on page 39, paragraph 13, the Council has been described as administratively
lazy approach of an area order. I think probably better informed of that situation now, but
have we been administratively lazy?
No.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:49:03
Now, Councillor Vaughan.
Councillor Michael Vann - 0:49:10
Yes, good afternoon. Councillor Corse was there on Monday, I was there last Friday.
Also, accompanied on a public footpath, it is done by two dogs.
It is a very busy site.
The already got confirmation that the Council does not consider it as an administratively
lazy approach has been adopted and also that other adverse comments made last August.
It seems from the public foot bath that the development has preceded a pace and quite
clear through the trees and being winter able to see pretty clearly what was going on.
Pretty clear, there's no leaves at all.
That things that are near completion and heavy vehicles are speeding around the site.
Time was 3 .20 last Friday so I can actually put a time to it for people who say that it's
caused alarm and despondency. I think I'm really asking the TPO officer to confirm that
things have been done in a prudent way and that there is no need to vary this afternoon
the application? Effectively no, Justice's recommendation is to accept it, the order
Officer - 0:51:09
as proposed. Thank you. Councillor Neill again. Yes, I'm sorry I suddenly
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:51:15
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:51:16
thought of another question. So these houses are still under the ownership of
the developer, but presumably they're going to be sold privately, so the
The blanket TPO would then accompany the sale of the house, if you like.
But then if the new purchaser decided that there was a tree that they wanted to manage
in a particular way, either remove or prune or whatever, would they then have to come
back as a separate application because of the blanket?
I'm guessing they would, because there's a blanket order.
Once the houses are in their final owner's hands, they would then have to ask for permission
to do work on the trees in their garden, which they might not ordinarily have had to do.
Is that correct?
Yeah, that's correct.
Officer - 0:52:04
If a resident moved into a property with a tree that was growing when the TPO was made
and they wished to undertake works or fell it, subject to certain exceptions, they would
need to submit an application in a normal way to undertake those works.
Okay.
And finally, final question.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:52:23
Councillor David Fowles - 0:52:29
When I was referring to my phone I was trying to make sure I got the right spelling of the
word, I didn't want to look foolish for my lack of knowledge.
Just wanted to clarify if I could, the case officer said we have two options, to confirm
or not confirm the order.
The objective said there is a third which is to confirm the order with modifications.
Is it within the scope of this committee, given we have a site meeting taking place
on the 5th of February, to visit the site to see if there is a way forward which is
to confirm with modifications or is that outside the scope of this committee looking at Harrison
and just trying to find a way forward?
The houses appear to have been built.
There appear to be some concerns that this blanket or area TPO was quite a blunt instrument
to protect the trees and we're all saying we want to protect the trees.
The ward members spoke very eloquently about that.
But I just wonder if there's a more pragmatic way forward which is to go up to the site
to see what's there and whether we're talking one or two trees or whatever.
Just like some guidance from the officers.
Thank you.
Officer - 0:54:09
If members have a good reason to believe that individual trees
rather than the group protection is necessary and they want to undertake a site visit to
determine that. That is free for them to do. The officers have made recommendations that
are set out in the report as to why we think the trees that are remaining should be protected.
I think a key thing to point out is it's the trees that are remaining which aren't all
of the trees that were indicated to remain under the original permission. So there is
a concern that we are seeking to protect what is left essentially as opposed to
as you recall from seeing the drawing in front of you most a good number of those
trees aren't there they've already been removed despite the requirements of
conditions and the indications on landscaping drawing so officers have
taken a more cautious approach to make sure that we have the time frame to put
in place the protection I think deferring and considering individual
or groupings of trees would undermine that.
I didn't quite hear you saying that the officers would be
in the community development circumstance,
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:55:14
Officer - 0:55:14
the officers would accept that as a way for the board to do it.
I didn't quite hear that.
It's free for members to do it, but it's not something that officers
would recommend given the history of the site.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:55:28
With all due respect, that's not the motion that's been put forward.
The motion put forward is whether to support our rejected pre -preservation order.
I agree with it, this is for the future and that's not what we're here for.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:55:42
We're on questions at the moment, I think we've extinguished all the questions we want to ask now.
So I'll move on to...
You want a question?
No, no.
I'll move on to comments.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:55:57
I just thought, Chair, I would take, if I can, the opportunity, I think we're moving on to comments.
I wish to propose the opposite of the recommendation and I wish to do that now in order to thank
colleagues for the very thorough examination and thought that they have given to this unusual
for us as a committee, this unusual application.
I think we have to decide whether or not this is expedient or inexpedient.
I think it is clear that some damage has been done.
There is some reference to the western side being subject to further investigation.
That's at the top of page 14.
Whether or not that's enforcement and what happens to that is not entirely relevant today.
But I think the fact that that is possibly an issue suggests that it is expedient to confirm this order.
Is this timely or is it overhasty?
I think it's clearly timely because we have to confirm or not confirm within six months
and we've had a very thorough discussion and indeed a very thorough presentation.
Is it proportionate or is it disproportionate?
It is entirely proportionate in my view because there is pretty certain evidence that some
doubt, unintended, unintended by us as the planning authority, unintended damage has
been done and the final version of this will, as we have explained to us, protect the individual
trees.
Is it reasonable or is it unreasonable?
I think it is entirely reasonable because of the importance of the tree protection regime
in this country and for our countryside.
I think therefore that it would be both wise and appropriate for us to support the officer's recommendation.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:57:33
Do I have a seconder?
Councillor Harris.
Do we have any comments?
We have had a very long question.
I just comment on the second.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:57:45
I think Councillor Cunningham summed it up very well.
I thought you spoke very impressively.
The officer's report has been very thorough.
We are not constraining development.
and it's built up largely.
And really, developers here because of their actions more than anything else.
It's not us being bloody minded or anything. We haven't got time to do that.
We pay somebody to protect trees in the area. That is their job.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:58:11
And if we don't do that, then what's the point having officers doing that?
So yes, I absolutely second the motion.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:58:16
Councillor Falton, you have a comment before I go to the vote?
Well, I do, yeah.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:58:21
Because all the photographs seem to give the impression to me that there was a level of...
Here was a blanket or area TPO and yet the developer had gone full steam ahead and
fencing wasn't in the right place and so on.
And yet we had an objector who was obviously retained by the developer
who clearly is very experienced and very professional.
and I'm sort of left a bit confused.
I understand we want to protect the trees.
I understand the rationale behind it,
but I'm just not as clear cut on this one
as other members appear to be.
I mean, clearly, I think everybody wants to protect
the trees, including the developer.
It's just the degree to which this area TPO
is hampering the finalization of the site,
the landscaping, and then things moving on.
I am probably going to abstain to be honest because I don't think I have enough information.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:59:20
No more comments, we will go to the vote.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:59:28
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:59:54
We will move on now to the next application.
This is an application for the erection of three dwellings and associated access and
landscaping at Woodley Brockhampton.

9 24/00386/FUL - Woodleigh, Brockhampton, Cheltenham

The applicant is Mr Turner, the agency is SF Planning Limited, case officer is Andrew Moody,
the ward member is Councillor Cai, and the recommendation is changed now to defer and I'll ask with you to explain why. Thank you.
Officer - 1:00:26
Thank you, Chair. Due to the absence of the case officer, I recommend that instead of seeking to make a decision
and exercising any questions or proposals that the item be deferred until it can be
presented properly by Mr Moody. In support of that recommendation, officers have contacted
by email everyone who commented on the planning application as well as all of the proposed
speakers to let them know that that was going to be the officer's recommendation. But it
is for members to decide whether they do wish to defer.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:01:04
I would like to propose that we defer it in the absence of an officer.
We now have to have a vote on that to defer.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:01:15
Councillor David Fowles - 1:01:20
I will send our apologies to the applicant.
and the partisan vote.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:01:47
So that application is deferred.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:01:54
In terms of the rules, at what point can someone,
if they're related to you, get their application dealt
with without it being referred to the committee?
Because it says it's here because it's a close relative.
But how far back does that go in terms of, I'm just curious.
I thought it only applied to members, not to relatives,
but clearly it applies to close relatives.
Is there a rule on that?
Who wants to take it?
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:02:21
Well, Chair, if I might first, while we're getting a proper legal word,
I distinctly recall that my mother -in -law, for instance,
who needed a small normally permitted development to her flat in Abbey House,
that had to come before this committee because I considered my mother -in -law to be a close relative.
and I'm pretty certain that in this case that we've, I think, just deferred, haven't we?
Yeah, we have.
It is a pretty close relative of Councillor Turner.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:02:55
Did you want to say anything, Tom?
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:02:56
Councillor David Fowles - 1:02:58
In the interests of moving things along, I'll look it up and get back to you, Councillor, okay?
Helen Blundell, Legal Services - 1:03:02
I don't know off the top of my head, I have to check the steaming delegation.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:03:08
I was going to make a mother -in -law joke, but none of my mother -in -laws were particularly
close to me.
Can I tell you, the 1980s are not wins anymore.
Right, okay then.
We're moving on to the next application, which is for the erection of an agricultural building
for the housing of dairy cattle at Manafar, Chetwyddworth.

10 24/02773/FUL - Manor Farm, Chedworth, Cheltenham

The applicant is Mr. Seb Clark, the agent is Kern and Countryside Consultants.
Case offers is Amy Hill.
Award member is Councillor Hodgson.
and our recommendation is to refuse.
So now, Amy, your report please.
Thank you, Chair.
So the application is for the erection
Officer - 1:03:44
of a large cattle building.
It's up near Chetworth.
Currently it's an existing dairy farm.
However, they've been working on a New Zealand style model,
which means that the cattle have been housed outside.
They've advised that due to various factors,
including needing to provide milk
to a local cheese maker that the system isn't working for them because it only
allows because they need to get the cattle to breed so they're producing
milk throughout the year. They also have issues regarding welfare because the
cattle are out in the winter and having TB issues which as well as the welfare
is having an impact in terms of their business viability. The site itself if I
The site is up in the northwest of Chedworth within the Cotswold National Landscape.
You can see the area outlined in red, there's a public right of way that runs along their
main access track as well as one which comes down north -south to the field above.
in the aerial.
And you can also see, looking at that aerial, it is part of
just the south of the former airfield there. So unlike many parts
of the national landscape as well as around Chadworth, it is a very flat section
of the landscape.
They have several existing buildings.
What you can see there is just the right
is sort of a long thin airfield building.
To the south they have that sort of dairy
as well as a building used for tractors and similar
or a court machinery.
There's also just the top right of the screen
is another building they sometimes use to house cattle.
Shown in the photograph image there.
So the aerial showing that building
and how it intersects with the public rights of way.
And you can also see a bit of a pond
which is started that slurry system.
So the proposed building itself is just over 100 metres in length as well as over 30 metres in width
and is located within that field, within the image we showed earlier.
And so it runs relatively north -south but that doesn't relate to the existing buildings or landscape features with hedging that you'll see in the photographs later.
I will say the application has landscape concerns.
I will go through it within the report itself.
We have considered whether they could do planting or the like to help soften it.
The problem being that given the scale of the building that putting
in planting A would take quite a long time to grow up so it actually had a meaningful cover
and it would be visible for that length of time.
and the amount of landscaping you need itself would itself not be particularly
characteristic where it's mainly open there. You've got patches of greenery and
sort of you can see a patch of trees itself but it's not particularly common
in that landscape for you to have just a random patch of trees with the building
behind and not the sound the fact that it would take a number of years for it
to be effective. So the building itself and elevations of it so it's nine meters
to the ridge height and as you can see it is just one large building there's
not much in the way to break it up and to create any sort of separation sorry
to create a reduction in the overall perception of massing as well as the
actual bulk itself. Thank you.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:07:22
Thank you Amy. To ask the public speakers if they come forward I've got...
Sorry, I have the info.
Officer - 1:07:33
Pictures, let's give you some context.
They are pictures, they show the site.
So you have the two bays, north at the top and bottom where the cattle be as well as
the main track through.
So we've got photographs now, hopefully you can see the little arrow.
It's not exactly precise but it was to give you an idea of where we were looking.
So we're along the road here looking sort of at where their entrance is.
You can see the little public right -of -way sign and it goes up to the left there.
And this is just a little bit further on the road looking back towards the site.
So the building would essentially just be in that sort of mid -right section of your
view.
I've walked up the public right of way there a bit and then turn around.
So we're looking towards their existing building, which the one that's in the foreground there,
I'll show you a picture of in a moment, but has the machinery in it.
So the view, the area to your left is where the building would be and sort of extend further
back behind as well.
So that's our existing Dairian office, the building that you can see in the photograph
a moment earlier.
and then from this spinning slightly right so you're overlooking where the
proposed building would be sited. This has gone back to the public right away so
walking up the track so you've got a relatively substantial gravel sort of
route through and you can see they have got some stuff out around but prominently
we're looking at sort of that very flat agricultural landscape. Turn around here
further up what you can see in front of you there looks sort of like a bit of a
of grass is essentially that it's a button that runs along the top of the field which
is such that it does limit some views as you walk, you know, if you were up just further
beyond it, it would limit some views on your approach down that path of where the building
would be.
Just, this is more to give you again the concept of the landscape that we're looking at and
there are the building near to the site.
And then back, so this shows the top of the airfield,
former airfield building and towards where the site would be,
also where the proposed building would be.
And now I finish, thank you.
Thank you.
Very good photographs, worth waiting for.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:09:51
Right, can we public speakers come forward please?
I've got Robert Darville, Seb Clark and Councillor Hodgson.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:10:16
The first speaker I have is Robert Darville.
You have three minutes before you start.
Thank you.
I would like to start by introducing the first biodeverse, grassland
Supporter - 1:10:34
environment of the land
on the north western side of Cheddwar village that you saw in the photos.
As I mentioned in my letter, the current dairy system is not sustainable without a suitable
cattle building.
Currently there is not adequate shelter to protect cattle from the elements or the ability
to separate cattle from the environment to protect them from disease.
The attempt to run a New Zealand -type system with cattle outside 365 days of the year due
to changing climate and the location sadly resulted in the welfare compromise of the
cattle with increased deaths and a marked increase in the incidence of disease, including
Yoni's disease, TB, mastitis and foot problems.
Since Seb Clark took over the management of the farm in 2023, he has been working extremely
hard to reverse these problems and his young team have a real bond with the cows and are
working very hard to meet their every need.
However, without a building it is very difficult to control the challenge of very wet and cold
conditions in the winter resulting in increased stress and disease on the cows and calves,
increased stress on the staff looking after the animals and uncontrolled costs.
Young enthusiastic farmers and farm staff are hard to find and need to be supported
in their endeavours as much as we can. Without a building, the inability to separate the
cows from the wildlife hosts of bovine TB has resulted in severe outbreaks of disease,
with 87 cows culled as TB reactors since October 2024, which is not sustainable for the long -term
viability of a dairy herd. TB is very distressing for the staff who have formed bonds with these
animals and it is associated with poor mental health in farmers, which is a real concern
for me. I note that the basis for the rejection is due to the size, type and location of the
building for the cattle. The requirements of the size of the building are dictated by
the welfare regulations for farmed animals, both in terms of the ground area and the height
required for appropriate ventilation. The building is a similar or slightly smaller
size than similar dairy cattle buildings at other dairy units that I work at, which are
also situated in the Cotswold National Landscape.
Although I note your desire to break it into smaller units,
this would create real management issues for a dairy
herd, as cattle are managed as one large group,
and separating them into variably sized smaller groups
creates issues with observation, feeding, slurry management,
and group dynamics.
Dairy cattle buildings are always
sited as close to the milking parlour
as possible to reduce the stress and danger to cows
of moving around on tracks between locations. Greater distances are associated with increased
mastitis and lameness. That is what dictates the location of the proposed building at Manor
Farm. The flat nature of the site is actually a positive for a dairy cattle building, with
buildings on sloped ground having issues with cattle slipping and falling as they change
heights.
Your time is up.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:13:32
Okay, Seb Clark, you have three minutes.
Thank you.
Supporter - 1:13:36
Man of Farm, Chedworth is an organic regenerative family farm
that's been producing milk for over a century.
We produce over 1 million litres of milk a year
and we have a world -class cheese maker,
Kingstone Dairy, located on the farm.
Their Ashcombe cheese won supreme champion at the British Cheese Awards,
making it the best cheese in Britain.
Our tiny farm shop is currently the only service provided to over 800 villages in Chedworth.
I want to make it very clear that this development and your decision is all about the survival of Manner Farm.
We lose approximately £135 ,000 of milk income over the five months the cows are out wintered.
The farm has not made a profit for the last five years.
This development will result in more milk and will result in a long -term profitable business.
This is all about survival. Without this shed we will not survive.
There are two key areas of contention the size, shape and outline of the
building and the location and orientation of the building. The building
has to be the size and shape that it is to allow it to function as a dairy cow
building. The height is needed for ventilation and to allow our machinery
to drive through and around it. The maximum height is no higher than the
other main building in the immediate proximity. The length follows industry
standards to allow 80 centimeters of feed space per cow. In order to feed our
entire herd we need to have a feed face that length. The width is the narrowest
we can go while still allowing the industry standards of seven and a half
square meters bedding space per cow. Any smaller development would mean we are
not able to house our entire herd and justifications for the shed will not be
met. We are willing to break up the outline with planting and we would be
willing to work with the condition of providing a landscape plan to achieve this.
The location has been placed as close as possible to our milking parlour, which the cows visit
twice a day, every day.
It cannot get any closer to existing buildings.
Anywhere else would be a more dominating location.
The angle of the development has been chosen to marry the shed to the existing slurry handling
system that is located at the back of the collecting yard.
Slurry channels can only be straight.
To be compliant with the Environment Agency and prevent pollution, we must line up with our existing slurry handling system.
Agriculture is the bedrock of our rural community and identity.
Manner Farm is contributing to the wildlife, cultural heritage and scenic beauty of the overall area through its organic regenerative practices.
It is producing world -class cheese that is showcasing Cotswold food production all over the world.
We directly support the community through our shop and the farm and the cheese business employs 12 people.
We are a key employer for the area.
Please do not refuse this development.
Don't let Manor Farm become another statistic and join the 6 % of dairy farmers in the UK that went out of business last year.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:16:34
Board Member, you have five minutes.
Thank you, thank you Ray.
Supporter - 1:16:38
and nice to see everybody belated happy new year.
Yes, so this application has come to this committee
Ward Member - 1:16:46
obviously due to its size, that's why it's come here.
And I have to kind of report back to you
that views on this application have not polarised
the local community in Shedworth in a way
that some other applications that have come before you have.
I mean, for instance, the Rencombe Airfield application
was the last one with my name against it
in terms of a warm, and that was hugely polarizing.
This, in contrast, is not polarizing at all.
So what I want to do is go through, really,
some of the differing opinions that I've had
in terms of people talking to me,
and just to add to some of the things that I've heard today.
So as has been said, you know, the area in question
is outside the conservation area in Shedworth,
and it is well away from other houses.
Talking about farming, and I think it's really important
to do so. There's no doubt that farmers have felt a lot of pressure in the last decade.
From the different payment system to the pandemic, the mooted change tax regimes of the current
government and very low margins on what is produced and you know the shocking sort of
fact about the lack of profit making in the last few years. All these add to huge pressures on our
farmers, yet of course they do an absolutely essential job for us all and I think it's
really important that we put that on the record today.
Now regarding the farm, it's a very established one, it's been established for over 100 years
and it's a great example of organic and regenerative farming.
Now the applicant, as he said, has reached out to the local community and he supplies
fresh produce via a vending machine in Chetworth Village Hill.
I myself have used that.
He initiated that. The milk is also supplied to another Chirr and Valley
business, Fire and Flow, which is an excellent entrepreneurial business in
Badgenden. So the farm is absolutely embedded in the local community and I've
had personally lots of positive feedback about what the farm is doing in Shedworth.
Now in terms of the background, we've already said the issues around keeping
the cattle dry and warmer, particularly in winter, the size of the shed needs to
what it is in terms of regulations because of the number of cattle. The need
to eradicate TB that's all been explained to you. In addition to this
obviously there are other things that need to be said. The dairy operation
needs to be carried out for all 12 months of the year and in the winter
months that is the issue really in the winter months. But I need to also just
remind you that this is well away from Chetworth. It is well away from any other
house or community. Now I've had some residents expressing opposite views. It's
important to say that they have not made these formally. They haven't done that
via the website but to me personally the issue for them is the sheer size of
what's planned and that obviously is one of the reasons why this has been
recommended as refusal. One person said to me it seems an awfully big increase
for one building but obviously there is a reason for that has been said. One
One person said to me the positioning is right across the site, currently hidden from the
road on the slurry pit side but would be highly visible on the approach to Chetworth.
And there is some scepticism about whether this, if it then failed, would then lead to
some house building.
But I know that is not a valid planning reason.
You have to look at what's currently there.
So I guess at the end, to summarise, the key question for you as a committee is does the
perceived harm to the AONB by such a large structure, is that outweighed by the clear
agricultural and economic benefits which have been laid before you today? That is your decision
and I wish you all the best in making that decision. Thank you.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:20:30
Thank you very much. If the speakers can return to their seats, please. We will move on now
to members' questions. Councillor Fowles.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:20:42
Thanks, Chairman. I should just like to say, I was going to say it under comments, but
I don't recall hearing speakers speak so well as the speakers have done today. Extremely
articulate, extremely knowledgeable, and I for one learned a lot, and I include the board
member. Amy, have we any reason, this issue of the size and the way that the applicant
to actually explain the need for the size.
Do you accept all of that?
Because I'm not an expert in farming, and you know,
sometimes applications come here with justifications
where the buildings do appear to be larger than they need to.
So can we just have clarity that,
as far as you're concerned, the agricultural aspect
of this is beyond doubt, and that in order
to do what they want to, to house their whole herd,
if that's correct, it's not a doubt,
It is just this issue of size as the ward member explained.
Could you just clarify that for my benefit?
Thank you.
Essentially, yes.
Officer - 1:21:42
Whilst I haven't got a full lesson in farming, they provided enough evidence that sort of
justified why they wanted that space.
Whether it has to be that layout and more the layout being one building is the issue.
I am not concerned that they are really farmers, as it were, and that they have submitted quite
number of letters of support from different things like the vets to
explain why the cattle need to be housed inside over the winter. So whilst
it's very unusual to want to have essentially such a large new building as
here we've got an existing herd they do want to extend it slightly from 250 to
240 houses, sorry cattle not houses, but it's still so within that remit so no I
don't think we have we have to worry about whether or not it is justifiable in
terms of their needs.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:22:33
Can I just quickly ask one that relates to that, Chairman, which is have you in your
dialogue with the applicant exhausted all other avenues in terms of lowering the profile
or locating it somewhere else because they seem to be adamant that that was the only
place for it? Have you had a good dialogue with them and this is the application before
us is the only solution. Could you confirm that?
Unfortunately the application was submitted without any pre -app so
Officer - 1:22:59
the opportunity to
have discussions and consider where on the site to be appropriate wasn't put forward
to us and whilst I recommended or advised early on in the application that realistically
that there were concerns over landscaping and that we would prefer, essentially my advice
to you would be that they withdrew it and we engaged in pre -app to discuss the options,
they didn't choose to do that.
That was a good question.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:23:24
Very important.
Councillor Watson.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Ian Watson - 1:23:34
First of all, Amy, thank you for the report.
It is very readable and very clear.
And also I concur with David for the speakers as well.
I did learn a lot.
My question is that we heard from our vet that there are other buildings very similar
to this across the Cotswolds already and I'm quite sure I've driven past some of them.
So are you aware of other buildings in the area like this?
My short answer is no.
Officer - 1:24:08
Obviously we have relatively large agricultural buildings.
The agents also identified some that were outside the national landscape to me in terms
down closer to Kemble that were a similar size but most the buildings you
drive past because I obviously I had the application driving around here it's
that similar and ones that I looked at like oh that's that seemed similar I
think the largest was around 60 meters in length I thought which was sort of a
comparable I can't guarantee that was in the national landscape but I haven't
dealt with one this long and I'm not familiar with any others that are I
can't say characterly there are not but they're not ones that I've seen that
actually are because a lot of the large agricultural buildings you see just
they're not 100 meters in length. It might be useful in terms of scale because I
find 100 meters is quite a random, like I know what 100 meters is, but if you think
of the entire length of the council building, so including the wing we know
what we use, it is that's about a hundred and seven hundred and ten meters. So
we're talking about a building the same sort of length as the entirety of this
and the next wing over. So it is a large building, which to give you that as a
context.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:25:17
Thank you very much.
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:25:19
So, I have three questions.
The first one is I think I am right in saying that we are not against the principle of development
here or something.
Would I be right on that?
That is great.
Yes.
It is an agricultural business and generally we are supportive of agricultural business.
it's just the size is essentially the issue.
Size and the sighting of it and how it relates to the landscape,
but a lot of it is primarily size -based.
And then my next question was, I mean, I know it's up there.
I go running and cycling up there,
and it's kind of strange landscape
because it's clearly been,
a lot of it's been graded during World War II,
or probably World War II, yeah, for the planes to take off there.
It's bloody windy, and I remember thinking up there
I can see why, you know, because you want to go into the wind and you take off, so I can see why the cattle are not particularly happy being out all the time.
But yeah, when you stand there, you go, this kind of, this doesn't feel like normal rolling countryside and so on.
So I suppose my point there is that in AONB, or whatever we call it now, National Landscape, you know, there are different categories of it, aren't there?
There's the beautiful valley with all the trees nestled in it and so on and so forth.
And then there's a bit that may not be as high quality.
And then there's a nasty old building that somebody built before it was all characterised.
But how would you categorise this if you had a top, middle and bottom in terms of AONP, sorry, national landscape quality?
My concern with that question goes to whether I'll be giving a preference.
It's part of why the landscape consultant was involved in the application because yes,
my preference is for the rolling hills but that's a preference rather than necessary
value.
It is a character area of it.
It's part of juxtaposition of things but yes, it's not in the same character for a lot of
our areas of the national landscape.
it is a much flatter area, but that in itself has quality.
Thanks, and then finally, you mentioned MPK 87,
was it seven? No, sorry, 88, which is prosperous and rural economy,
but that's sort of, before that, and it's part of section six,
which is building a strong competitive economy,
which starts off with paragraph 85, which says,
policies and decisions should help create the conditions
in which business can invest under which this falls, 88 falls.
But it also says significant weight should be placed on the need
to support economic growth and productivity.
And I notice that's not mentioned explicitly in there.
But given that we should be giving significant weight to this,
in conjunction I would say, I would argue with 88, which is sustainable growth
and expansion of types of businesses in rural areas.
Is there a reason why you didn't mention 85 in there or is it just because there's a limit on space?
You're not alone in not mentioning 85 in the...
If colleagues are thinking, well, I wonder how much weight I should give the fact that it's a business and so on and so forth,
my knowing this paragraph I would say significant.
And this is NPPF from December 24.
I think obviously we do give significant weight,
but as Amy sort of already said,
there's no in principle objection
to some form of development,
so it is then a way of supporting a rural business,
you know, giving significant weight to its support
versus balancing that with the landscape part,
which I think is where the case officer's recommendation is that that landscape harm is quite significant and outweighs that that is a
judgment
One final question if I if you indulge me chair
And I think this is this is sort of comes off the back and I think of council fouls question because we're not experts
So we're being told that it needs to be this size. Otherwise, it's not viable surely
Great, you know if we say oh you can do a section of smaller ones
Are we saying that with any degree of not, do we have an agricultural consultant here
who says, yeah, of course they can do it like that, they're just trying to get a bigger
building or...
Because it's pointless us suggesting an alternative if the alternative is not viable, if that
makes sense.
They haven't been much in terms of the reason why it had to be one building.
From a logical perspective I would say that there are a lot of existing farms that operate with multiple smaller, still large, but smaller buildings.
And I can see why you'd need them to be in close proximity to each other for there to be a welfare in terms of keeping up on welfare.
You don't want to have 100 cattle here and then 3 miles away 100 cattle there because that's not going to be feasible.
I'm essentially, no we haven't had an agriculture consultant involved, but it's, for me, I can't
see a particular reason why you couldn't have them close together in a logical format so
that you have the buildings accessible. Certainly from a welfare perspective, as long as they're
accessible, to me that doesn't seem like a thing, but no, there hasn't been an agriculture
consultant to say yes, this is definitely the alternative.
Thank you.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:31:03
Officer - 1:31:07
Councillor Michael Vann - 1:31:08
Councillor van I have been there I was fed across from very helpful but don't
give the I think the full picture which is just first making the obvious point
which is the dairy farm is not in Chadworth Village.
If you try and sat -nav Manor Farm, Chadworth,
you do not get to the farm.
I did sat -nav it and had to be redirected to the farm at the top of the hill.
I looked at things from the wide public right away across the farm.
The land is very flat.
It's most unlikely to have been flat for all time.
It is not the rolling hills of the walls.
Most certainly not.
Added to that there are World War II buildings and white vehicle routes around.
The...
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:32:15
Councillor Vang, could we...
We're on questions at the moment.
You wanted to comment.
Yes, we're working up to it.
Yes, could we have your question, please?
Councillor Michael Vann - 1:32:23
The alternative that has been referred to by the officer, I challenge that.
The milking parlour for the whole herd is in one place.
The slurry system is in one place.
And there needs to be a building to take the herd which is going to be milked quite a day.
Please comment.
I think to some extent we have to bear in mind obviously from the case officer's point
of view, they are making an assessment based on the application that has been put in front
of them. The suggestion of the alternatives I suppose is more to trigger a conversation
that is where a pre -application would have been beneficial, where we can explore all
those alternatives. Amy may have through her discussion suggested a
Officer - 1:33:16
few different alternatives
that maybe weren't feasible, but that's the exercise that the pre -application would have
allowed us to go through, and possibly reach the same conclusion we've got in front of
us, but without that evidence, without having gone through that exercise, Amy can only assess
what's been put in front of her, which is a single very large building with the sort
evidence of supporting information that's accompanied the application and
that's what she's made an assessment on with her recommendation.
Councillor Michael Vann - 1:33:42
The assessment was that the building was too big. That's in the report.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:33:47
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:33:51
Councillor Gary Selwyn - 1:33:53
Councillor Sowen. Thank you chair. I only have one remaining question.
Councillor Harris asked the ones I was going to do, thank you. On page 83 under
Paragraph 10 .25. Section N says new farm building should generally be integrated
within existing farmsteads. I'd be very grateful if somebody can explain to me
what that means. I know specifically the reference to the orientation of the
building and how that may or may not be perceived to be integrated or not. So
some clarity on point N would be most helpful from the design code point of
you.
Officer - 1:34:36
In terms of generally, what I would take from generally integrated within existing farmsteads
is either where you actually have existing yards, you might put them within, although
I would sort of allow that to scope to somewhere that would read readily alongside so that
you're, it's not, what we're looking, trying, mainly trying to avoid, I would go with that
one, is isolated ones that are far away from others, obviously subject to there being justification,
but that you are looking at them relating to existing farm buildings.
Councillor Gary Selwyn - 1:35:07
So it would be fair to say then that because of what we've heard, the applicants are trying
absolutely to integrate this development with their existing farmstead, or is that an unfair
assumption?
Officer - 1:35:22
I would say they have located it, they've explained why they put it there in terms of
and the dairy. The problem in part being because of the scale of the building is that it will
dwarf the existing buildings and it's not within, you know, that it is a field rather
than a yard of concreted area. So you haven't got that level of integration and because
it would then dwarf the existing buildings it's not going to look well integrated with
it.
Councillor Watson.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:35:51
Councillor Ian Watson - 1:35:53
Thank you chair. Just very briefly on the design specification we've got here, we see
the dimensions, the height, the length etc. But what is the building actually made of?
Is it wood? Is it concrete? Is the roof green or silver? Do we have those details?
I'm going to go up on three. I don't believe it's actually clarified
Officer - 1:36:16
but I think it's likely
be a metal frame building concrete to the lower half with the Yorkshire
boardings in these. They didn't specify the roofing material it's typically a
lightweight thing which could be dealt with by condition if the council are
recommended to approve.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:36:35
Councillor Harris. Thank you sorry I forgot this one. During your
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:36:37
presentation
You mentioned about planting that could potentially shield the building,
but you also suggested that that would take a time and so that so for a while.
I mean, is it acceptable that maybe it takes a time, but ultimately in five, ten, fifteen years time, it's not visible or
I just wonder what the Council's view on that is.
My apologies, I don't know.
Officer - 1:37:12
I would usually look for landscaping to try and soften the appearance of something rather than necessarily hide it,
because they can plant it and then in 20 years time they can cut it all down.
So if it's that harmful in context it probably shouldn't happen.
But it does provide softening.
The concern there is that you'd have to have an awful lot of planting to hide a
hundred meter long building and in itself isn't going to be that
characteristic given there are patches but it's not that kind of wooded
landscape in the same way.
Councillor Coleman.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:37:43
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:37:45
Thank you chair. This is the first time that we've had something come
automatically to this committee because it is what we have as a council recently
defined as a major development.
I'm also aware that the government, our new government, is consulting on changes to planning
committee rules, trying to standardise and establish best practice.
And I attended only yesterday, I think, online, as soon with planning and advisory service.
This led me, listening to the debate, my question therefore is to our senior officers, given
the case officer a brief break. Would you suggest that it would be a would you
agree that it might be a good reform but when the government are reforming these
things to require major developments to have a pre -application in place because
we have seen more than once in this committee have we not that the absence
of pre -application causes delay and often unhappiness.
Officer - 1:38:52
I like the question, I think we're moving outside the realms of the discussion.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:38:58
It's a tricky one.
Officer - 1:39:02
If I can just sum up a couple of things.
Yes, we support the volume, the square meterage of the building required in this location.
We recognise that there's a benefit and we don't object to proximity to existing operations.
but we don't feel that the proper siting and design and layout of the building or possible buildings has been considered properly.
If you looked at other agriculture operations or any groups of buildings generally you'll find in most situations
there is generally a logic that's immediately observable from how they relate to each other and how they evolve.
That might be consistent ridge lines, that might be, you know, things arranged at 90 degree angles and the same levels with a
building upon an established perimeter of built form.
When you look at the drawing you see more
the... because there hasn't had... I look at the layout and I think that isn't the scheme that's had pre -app.
It looks as if it's been designed for convenience, which I completely understand because you're running a business you want to
provide the services that are needed in the most efficient manner.
But we do have to weigh the benefits that accrue from that contribution to the rural
economy with, is this appropriately designed for the national landscape?
And again, you might look at the national landscape and you might say this is one of
the less salubrious parts of it, less beautiful, but you might take that to mean that you should
pay greater attention to protecting the value that exists there already.
So it's a very tricky thing for members, I understand.
But, yeah, we have recommended it on balance for refusal.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:40:39
Councillor Neill.
Yes, a couple of things.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:40:45
First of all, there's two slightly conflicting things about newts.
In a 4 .4 it says it's been identified as an area of high potential for newts.
But then I'm assuming that 10 .6, which
says it's unlikely that it's a suitable habitat for newts,
I'm assuming that counteracts 4 .4,
because we're obviously very concerned
about the risk of newts in the Cotswolds.
It's the first thing.
Officer - 1:41:17
So we have zoning areas for risks, great price of newts,
that come in, I believe it's white, green, amber, red.
And essentially, it's in one of the higher areas to say,
there's a potential for newts.
But the particular site itself has
been assessed by the biodiversity officer
as not having a particularly high potential.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:41:35
OK, so the biodiversity officer wins out in that case.
Thank you very much.
And then secondly, in the village
where I live, which is in the national landscape
in this beautiful village, we've recently
had a similar barn built but on a much smaller scale. I mean it's quite an
attractive building I can see it from my bedroom window and I don't find it
unattractive. I can see that there's a problem with the bulk of this building
so what I'm asking is if the building was modified in some way
not to make it a different shape an L shape or a T shape or something like
that might that make it more acceptable or is it just that overall bulk as a
Officer - 1:42:18
that's not acceptable. I think we've got the principle of a building is acceptable
as you said we have similar but smaller scale buildings around and we approve
them and so fundamentally that part of the design isn't a concern so
essentially yes there is the potential for on that I say on that site I mean
sort of the farm in that area not necessarily the red outline there is
potential for the amount of footprint or a similar footprint potentially for them
to achieve, it's how they've come forward with the proposal to achieve that, with that
design of it being just one monolithic building rather than there being any sort of attempts
really to break it up. That is sort of the main concern.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:42:58
Any more questions before we go on to comments? No questions of comments please.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:43:05
Councillor Fowls. I've served on this committee on three separate
and I would just like to say that it is so refreshing to be able to look at an application
like this where you've got such a clearly defined decision that we have to make.
The case officer's report is fantastic.
It's very thorough and thank you.
You look at our policies, EC1, EC3, et cetera, and you've expressed those very, very clearly
and absolutely no doubt.
But let's look at the practical side of this, which is,
we're talking about a 100 -year -old farm,
which predates most of our policies.
All too often, I've sat on this committee and we've looked
at applications where we're thinking of housing human beings
in developments near our big settlements and so on,
or looking at converting redundant farm buildings.
It's a given that farm, farming's changed.
It no longer employs as many people as it used to.
The equipment is bigger and farmers,
to their immense credit are still out there doing this thing.
To see a farm that's been around for a hundred years is now being run by the next generation is fantastic.
And I think this application is before us because on the one hand, no, the policy is very clear.
We need to adhere to the policy.
But as Councillor Harris has already said, and I lived in Wrencombe and I looked out across this site for three years,
Historically, this is a very unusual area in the Cotswolds because it has been flattened
off.
Any building up there, whether it's this size or smaller, is prominent because it's incredibly
flat.
The history of that area is, as you rightly say, to do with the Second World War and various
other things.
And I think that when I look at our landscape and I look at large agricultural buildings,
in some way I have a filter which says, well, that's an agricultural building.
It's not a house, it's not an office, it's not a car park, it's an agricultural building.
And it seems to me, going back to what the speakers, including the ward members, said,
there's a very clear case that this business will not survive if we do not support this application.
And I'm believing the applicant, I'm believing the vet, and I'm believing the ward member.
And I think it's very clear that the case officer can't fault her report,
but it's here because we have to make a practical decision to allow this business.
And I do not want a headline that says that we refuse this application based on policy
and effectively a very, very successful entrepreneurial farm went out of business.
So for me it's very clear cut.
No, I don't want this huge building there, but I think it needs to be there to let this business survive.
and we move on and I'm delighted that it's come to us, delighted to have had this debate,
but if we make it smaller or put some trees around it, that's not the issue for me.
I think we've got to support this application or rather not support the officer's recommendation,
so I would like to put a counter proposal which is that we refuse the officer's recommendation.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:46:20
The word, I mean, I you can pick the wording out of 11 and 12 in the officer's report because it's so well written
Councillor David Fowles - 1:46:28
but you just alter the balance the balances that we believe is a committee that we should support this because of
the the requirement in terms of
The app the applicants cattle need need and need welfare and the business needs of this farm outweigh
the
Scale design and positioning in relation to the landscape. It's in that area
I think we should be really really focused on this and actually just support these farmers.
Thank you chair.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:47:00
The motion has been moved and seconded.
Officer - 1:47:04
I think the vote might be accomplished by voting on the officer's recommendation as
one alternative and if that vote fails then members would have the opportunity to consider
other steps. Or the motion might be amended to recommend planning permission subject to
conditions that members might want to discuss.
I'd like to leave this always, not with them.
Mr Harris.
Thank you.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:47:43
Yeah, I mean, in seconding it.
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:47:45
I mean, it's because of the landscape, it's not A1, AONB,
because of the national and local planning policies, particularly in relation to the economic development and particularly in relation to rural
supporting rural economy, but also because of the lack of substantive objections.
That's why I would support this. That said,
and if you're happy for me to proceed with this, I would like to
condition that is only ever used for agricultural purposes if we can condition that.
and that the final design and materials are approved to fit within the national landscape as appropriately as possible.
So, not a great big stripey blue and white building like you have up in the...
And perhaps work with the applicant to look at the landscape you're going over.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:48:35
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:48:36
Yeah, we can talk about it today. I'm allowed to speak.
Yeah, yeah.
The landscape should take advantage of that. It's not going to alter very much, but it will help.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:48:46
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:48:47
I'd like caution to the applicants on this, that this can be where the work starts with
the council, because there will be hoops to jump through to make sure that it does achieve
all those things.
But I think it's a step closer.
That would be my suggestion.
I don't know if any members have got any other conditions they'd like to consider.
Hi.
Councillor Selwyn.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:49:08
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Gary Selwyn - 1:49:11
just summarising a few observations here.
The reason we're hearing this application is simply because it's more than a thousand square metres of non -residential development
and for no other reason.
So were it smaller size this would have been refused on officer recommendation.
So I'm glad it's here because there's some very helpful things that we've been able to explore.
I'm very impressed by the efforts of the owners have made to commercialise their operation
and I will be trying the cheese at some point, whatever the outcome.
I think the balance in my mind was very neatly summed up by the exit summary by Councillor
Hodgkinson who left us two very clear balancing arguments and although I try never to disagree
with officer expertise, which is paramount here, I think I do have a slight alternative
difference and I notice that the logic of logical building structure if you
look at the orientation on the map on page 91 there's no orientation those
buildings that we're looking at there that I can see there's all sorts of
different angles involved and I think I think that will do me thank you
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:50:27
Councillor Ian Watson - 1:50:31
Councillor Watson. Thank you chair. When I first joined this committee two or
three years ago I think and credit to the chair and the vice -chair told me
that every decision we're going to make will be a balance between on one side
the planning law but we've also got to look at the whole situation and work our
way through that. I'd like to associate myself with the comments of Councillor
I do think there is a balance involved in this family, in this community with the jobs
that were involved there, with the welfare of the animals.
And this isn't in the village.
If it was in the middle of the village, I might have another view on this, but as it
is, I will vote accordingly.
Thank you.
Any more comments?
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:51:19
James O 'Colmatt.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:51:24
I'm sure our officers are already doing some of this work as we're talking, but imagine
that we would need conditions for external lighting, surface water drainage, for light
pollution, which is slightly different, bats and perhaps surface water drainage might not
be relevant.
The three year start, which is a standard condition, start within three years.
But probably most importantly, a landscaping scheme, as our officer indicated, it doesn't
want it completely hidden by trees and neither do us.
Because agriculture is part of our life, at least we haven't got the mega farms they have
in America now that cover entire square miles.
And this is nothing like that.
This is natural growth, it's economic development,
which is why it takes a lot to get me
to oppose this particular officer,
because it's so totally professional and correct.
But I do think at the moment that if we can make certain
we don't miss anything out,
if we can use this opportunity to send the message,
help agriculture get a pre -application in.
And that would just, I know it costs money.
I'm not a business person, so it's easy for me to say that, but it just it saves so much trouble
Thank you, okay. Thank you, so
all the
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:52:51
Conditions we've got tell me if I've missed any out. It's got to be limited to agricultural use
Material the construction
landscaping
lighting drainage
start within three years
and I note the environment agency want pre -commencement conditions as well.
Have I missed anything out?
That's it, landscape.
Bats? Bats.
Bats as well.
Waste management.
Waste management.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:53:27
So, there was some discussion earlier about the physical structure.
I mean, I know it has to be practical and cost effective,
but if we can do anything to mitigate the materials being used in some way,
Councillor David Fowles - 1:53:37
I don't know whether that's to do with the introduction of some wood, just to soften it or...
The bottle is not working.
What?
The bottle is not working.
OK.
We've got materials.
OK.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:53:50
Look at materials.
Have I missed anything out?
I don't think so.
Right.
OK then.
So subject to conditions to be agreed.
So, we recommend, the proposal we got now is to permit subject to all the conditions I've mentioned.
Okay.
So, we're changing it to approving the applications.
Our proposal, yes.
Just to clarify, but delegating to offices to finalise the conditions.
Yeah.
Okay.
Yeah.
So, we're all clear on that.
Could you just run through an action replay on the conditions?
Right, okay. I've got started in three years, limited to agricultural use, approving of materials, a landscaping scheme,
lighting, drainage, waste management, bats, an environment agency pre -commencement, and delegated authority to approve them.
Might be some others.
By diversity net gain as well.
By diversity as well.
That's always a problem.
Are the planning officers content with that?
Officer - 1:55:17
Yes, if members do vote to grant planning permission
and delegate the final detail of the conditions,
some of them have to be agreed with the applicant
because they would be pre -commencement
and we would be following external statutory advice.
The biodiversity net gain, as Helen said, is statutory,
so that would be undertaken in parallel,
but we'd need to see some detail before the decision was issued.
And I think if we were unable to agree the final language
with the applicant,
then we would be in consultation with the chair.
We'd normally avoid bringing something back to committee,
and I don't think that's likely,
but if that were the case, we would do so if the chair directed.
So I think we've got all that.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:55:56
So we'll now vote on that proposal to permit.
OK, so we can vote, please.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:56:03
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:56:11
Right, well that's unanimous, so that's permitted to get to all those conditions.
Thank you.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:56:18
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:56:19
So we'll return back to the agenda now.
Here we go.
I am having a sin.

11 Sites Inspection Briefing

A slight inspection.
Do you want to get a new panel for the class?
No.
Keep the date free if you are on the panel for that.
Licensing committee.
Again, we have a date there. Anything to be confirmed?
That's it, I think.
No requirement for license at the moment?
OK, that concludes the meeting.
Thank you.

There are currently no votes to display