Planning and Licensing Committee - Wednesday 12 February 2025, 2:00pm - Cotswold District Council Webcasting
Agenda
Slides
Transcript
Map
Resources
Forums
Speakers
Feedback
Votes
Speaking:
Agenda item :
Start of webcast
Share this agenda point
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Slide 1
Agenda item :
1 Apologies
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
2 Substitute Members
Share this agenda point
-
Councillor Julia Judd
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Agenda item :
3 Declarations of Interest
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
4 Minutes
Share this agenda point
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Agenda item :
5 Chair's Announcements
Share this agenda point
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Julia Judd
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Gary Selwyn
-
Councillor Michael Vann
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Councillor Andrew Maclean
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Ian Watson
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Helen Blundell, Legal Services
-
Officer
-
Officer
-
Julia Gibson, Officer
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Agenda item :
6 Public questions
Agenda item :
7 Member questions
Share this agenda point
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Agenda item :
Schedule of Applications
Agenda item :
8 24/00386/FUL - Woodleigh, Brockhampton, Cheltenham
Share this agenda point
- 24.00386.FUL - Case Officer Report
- 1 - 24.00386.FUL - Location Plan
- 2 - 24.00386.FUL - Proposed Site Block Plan
- 3 - 24.00386.FUL - Elevations - 1
- 4 - 24.00386.FUL - Elevations - 2
- 5 - 24.00386.FUL - Houses 1 and 2 Floor Plans (1)
- 6 - 24.00386.FUL - Houses 1 and 2 Floor Plans (2)
- 7 - 24.00386.FUL - Photographs
-
Officer
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Officer
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Town/Parish Council
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Objector
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Applicant/Agent
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Ward Member
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Ian Watson
-
Officer
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Officer
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Helen Blundell, Legal Services
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Officer
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Officer
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Officer
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Officer
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Officer
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Andrew Maclean
-
Officer
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Andrew Maclean
-
Officer
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Andrew Maclean
-
Officer
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Gary Selwyn
-
Officer
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Officer
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Julia Judd
-
Officer
-
Councillor Julia Judd
-
Officer
-
Councillor Julia Judd
-
Officer
-
Councillor Michael Vann
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Michael Vann
-
Officer
-
Officer
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Michael Vann
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Officer
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Michael Vann
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Gary Selwyn
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Andrew Maclean
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Ian Watson
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Julia Judd
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Andrew Maclean
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Webcast Finished
Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:00:00
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:00:02
We are now live on the webcast.Welcome to this meeting of the Cotswold District Council
Planning and Licensing Committee.
Thank you very much for coming today.
In particular, thanks to the members of the public
who've taken the time to come here.
You are very welcome.
There is one very important rule.
You may have been able to guess it.
That for the councillors on the committee,
it's a rule backed by law that in order
that we are seen to be objective and going through proper process, we as
councillors may not speak to the members of the public here for an application.
Gosh, I was talking too loud. Right, my apologies for not speaking loudly enough.
My point there was to advise the members of the public who are extremely welcome
here today that the councillors on the committee are not permitted to speak to
during this meeting or indeed during any break we might have.
And that's because we have to be seen to be following a clear and transparent objective process.
I'm particularly conscious of this because as a new Councillor it took me three years to agree to it
and I had to be reminded, so don't be like me.
The first item is apologies for absence.
We do have two apologies.
1 Apologies
We have apologies from Councillor Darryl Corps and Ray Brasington.
Normally he would chair this meeting but he is unwell.
and I've spoken him to today and on behalf of your
Councillors, I'll speak to him after the meeting and send him your good wishes
2 Substitute Members
Second item is substitute members. Are there any substitutes today? There are not
So that means our committee
consists of nine rather than eleven
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:02:11
I'm not sure. Am I a substitute in a way?Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:02:18
Thank you. Yes, normally I'm the Vice Chair, so for this meeting only, which I chair inthe absence of our Chair, Ray Brasington, Councillor Julia Judd has kindly agreed to
carry out the duties of the Vice Chair during the meeting. Thank you very much, Julia.
Item 3 on the agenda, any declarations of interest from members relating to items to
3 Declarations of Interest
be considered at the meeting? There are none. Item 4, minutes of our previous meeting held
4 Minutes
on Wednesday 15 January. Are there any suggested corrections or amendments to the minutes?
There are none, so we will proceed to vote.
Councillor Dillis -Nill.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:03:22
I may have made a mistake on the one about the TPO, 24 -00 -02.I voted in favour of the TPO and it is abstained.
but I could have accidentally pressed the wrong button.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:03:42
Well, thank you for that, Councillor Neill.Given that, first of all,
if the votes were displayed on the screen,
as I recall they were,
then there's no reason for them to be misinterpreted
by the officer who can see the screen and makes the minutes.
Secondly, it may be possible by reviewing a recording,
and thirdly it makes no difference to the result.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:06
Exactly. I perhaps pressed the wrong button. Sorry.Thank you.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:04:11
And no further suggested comments on the minutes.I would therefore propose that the minutes be confirmed.
Is there a seconder? Councillor Watson, thank you.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:04:36
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:04:52
Thank you very much colleagues.Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:05:05
The next item is number five, Chair's announcements.5 Chair's Announcements
I've not been given any announcements to make, so we'll move on to item six, public questions.
Do we have any public questions today?
Right.
Yes, it's a very good point.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:05:29
Sorry, just one moment.Because I don't have the script of what to do in front of me, and despite having sat here for many years,
I've neglected to do the introductions from the people sat in front of you.
And in the meantime...
Well, I'll do that in a minute. Okie doke.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:05:52
I've already been introduced. I'm Councillor Patrick Coleman from Stratton in Sire and Sester,normally vice chair I move to my left um council Julia Jadis you've already
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:06:01
Councillor David Fowles - 0:06:06
heard and I'm ermine Ward good afternoon I'm council David foul sign representthe econ Valley Ward good afternoon Gary sell win sorry
Councillor Gary Selwyn - 0:06:16
Councillor Michael Vann - 0:06:20
sister water more Michael van Fairford north good afternoon everyoneCouncillor Mark Harris - 0:06:24
I'm AndrewCouncillor Andrew Maclean - 0:06:27
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:06:29
McCain from the Rissingtons. Councillor Mark Harris from Sire and Sister AbbeyCouncillor Dilys Neill - 0:06:35
Ward. Hi I'm Delice Neel and I represent Stone and the Wold.Councillor Ian Watson - 0:06:43
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:06:50
Helen Blundell, Legal Services - 0:06:53
And now the officers. Good afternoon I'm Helen Blundell I'm council solicitor.Good afternoon, I'm Harrison Bailey, I'm the Head of Planning Services
Officer - 0:06:58
for the Co -operationOfficer - 0:07:03
Council. Andrew Mee, Senior Case Officer. Julia Gibson,Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:07:07
Democratic Services Officer. Thank you very much and thank you forCouncillor Patrick Coleman - 0:07:18
remindingme to do the introductions. Item 6 is public questions but not everybody sat with us today
in the public area may have a copy of the agenda. I'm going to read this out. A maximum
of 15 minutes is allocated for an open forum of public questions.
public questions at committee meetings. No person may ask more than two questions, including
supplementary questions. No more than two such questions may be asked by the public
will be two minutes. Questions must relate to the responsibilities of the committee,
6 Public questions
but questions in this section cannot relate to applications for determination at the meeting.
The response may take the form of three alternatives.
A direct or response, maximum length two minutes, where the desired information is in a publication
or the council or other published work, a reference to that publication.
or thirdly, where the reply cannot conveniently be given orally, a written answer circulated
later to the questioner.
With those rules, are there any public questions?
Well done.
Would you like to come forward, please, so that you can be heard on a microphone?
Officer will identify one for you.
It is there.
Thank you very much for coming forward to speak.
don't be afraid and please give your name so that it's recorded for the
minutes and for the answer and go ahead two minutes and Jill Waller I'd like to
Public Speaker - 0:09:44
know if the council has the authority to overturn the current legislation whichsays that boundary hedges must can be asked to be cut to six feet has the
committee the authority to stipulate that boundary hedges can be cut can be
kept you know high like five meters
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:10:15
thank you I'm going to turn to our offices in a moment but it sounds to melike this is the high hedges legislation which several councillors have had
experience of and which is not entirely determined by councils, but
Which of you would like to answer?
Thank you
Officer - 0:10:35
It's something I'd have to look into respond to you in writing it for me if it's set by national legislationIf it's set by national legislation then we wouldn't have the authority to overturn it if it's a locally set thing is something we could potentially
review but I'd have to look into where that, whether it is a national or local
bit of legislation or designation so I can follow that up in writing for you
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:11:00
though. May I ask would you like the reply by email or by post and if youcould supply your contact details for your choice. Okay so if you'd like to
write down your name and address and pass them to the officers I'm really
grateful to you for coming forward because high hedges are a big issue for
many of us. Thank you.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:11:29
We've reached item 7 on the agenda. Member questions? Are there any memberquestions?
7 Member questions
There are not.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:11:42
So we turn to Item 8, Schedule of Applications.Now I'm going to go through the process for my own benefit but also for the benefits of
our visitors.
Schedule of Applications
The stages are first that the Responsible Planning Officer, which in this case Mr Andrew
Moody case officer will present the details of the case using the screens. We all have
in front of us and have read the written details. This is erection of three dwellings with associated
access and landscaping at Woodley, Brockhampton, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire. The applicant
The agent is Mr Turner.
The agent is SF Planning Limited.
Case Officer Andrew Moody.
The ward member is Councillor Jeremy Thayer.
The application is referred to committee as the application was submitted by or on behalf
of a close relative of a member, Councillor Claire Turner.
And the constitution scheme of delegation for the council requires such a decision to
not be determined under delegated powers.
I think this is for clear transparency and propriety reasons.
It was on our agenda for 15 January, but due to the case officer being unavoidably absent,
we deferred consideration for four weeks until today.
So the officer makes the presentation.
This is followed by the public speakers who come forward and sit in this row.
Then we have questions from councillors and then when the questions have all been dealt
with, we move to discuss and debate the application.
So we will move to the case officer.
Thank you, chair.
8 24/00386/FUL - Woodleigh, Brockhampton, Cheltenham
Officer - 0:13:48
As members will be aware, there were additional pages circulated at the end of last week,As you have had those for about five days now, I will proceed straight to the presentation.
The application site is the area outlined in red on the screen in front of you.
Woodley is the area in blue.
It is towards the northern edge of the village of Brockhampton.
The property is just to the northwest of the application site in Chucsby River.
This is where the three proposed dwellings will be located.
It's very difficult to hear you at the back.
Okay, can we do anything?
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:14:25
Thank you, thank you very much for pointing that out.Is there anything we can do to improve audibility?
No, I just asked our IT officer that was here.
There's nothing we can do to make the...
Get closer and speak up and slower.
Officer - 0:14:37
I'll move it closer, Chair. Is that better? Can everybody hear me now?Yes, it is.
Okay, thank you.
So the application site relates the land to the rear of Woodley,
where the three dwellings on the screen are proposed.
These are elevations of what the houses would look like.
That was houses 1 and 2.
This is house 3, which is the northernmost of the units.
There's the floor plans for houses 1 and 2.
Pair of semi -detached properties, each with three bedrooms.
This is house 3, which is a detached property with four bedrooms.
This is an aerial view.
This is taken from one of the documents submitted with the application.
It allows members to see the site in context as well as you can show you aerial photographs
they are taken from many miles up in the sky.
This gives you a bit more context where it is.
The site is literally in the center of the screen where it says the site.
You can see Rockhampton Park towards the top left -hand corner.
That's the grade two list of building nearby.
And you see residential development sporadically around the site.
Moving to photographs, this is the view looking north at the entrance onto the public highway.
Looking south, photographs taken from a few yards into the site.
So where the first two photographs were taken is in the centre of the screen on the roadside.
So this is looking towards the public highway.
This view is rotated on the same spot looking back towards the application where the application site would be in the three houses proposed.
Some existing outbuilding within the curtledge of Woodley.
That is view looking towards the north eastern corner of the site.
House one would be in the foreground, sorry house three would be in the foreground on that photograph.
And then this is looking towards the southern boundary of the site.
This is the area where Hoses 1 and 2 would be sited.
That's another photograph within the garden of the property.
That's looking northwest, again, roughly in the area where Hoses 3 would be sited.
The view back towards Woodley itself.
You can see it's probably a mid -late 20th century detached property.
These are the properties.
As you can see the hedge on the right -hand side of the photograph, these are the properties
that are within the conservation area.
Conservation area boundary runs along the track in front of you, which serves a number
of residential properties.
That gives you a closer view of the hedge along the boundary.
One final photograph.
This is an aerial photograph.
I will come back to show what this says in greater detail when you ask questions, no
doubt.
The application site is the area etched in green.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:17:35
Thank you.So I think it's now time for public speakers.
So we call up from the Town and Parish Council, Councillor Gordon Day of 7 Hampton Parish.
and your seat is here. You all come together please.
Representing on behalf of the objectors, Wendy Hopkins of Brodie Planning.
Applicant agent is here.
Local member, Councillor Jeremy Thayer,
because he's not voting at this meeting, is able to talk to you, I'm pleased to say.
And Paul Jenkins, the agent.
Yes, sorry.
Town and Parish Council.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:18:37
So that's Councillor Gordon -Day.You have three minutes and we are very strict on that.
Town/Parish Council - 0:19:03
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, the parish council regards the case officer's reportas being fundamentally legally flawed in that it wrongly assumes the Woodley site to be
within a non -principal settlement and as such this application falls to be judged under
policy DS3. This is directly contrary to a string of recent planning decisions concerning
properties in Brockhampton, including, notably, 2204230FUL, relating to the Craven Arms pub,
a property which on any basis lies at or near the centre of the village, which was made
in January 2023. That decision in powers 3, 8 and 9 in terms clearly states that Brockhampton
is not a non -principal settlement and that accordingly DS4 is the correct policy to be
applied. No material changes to the settlement or the services and amenities available to
its inhabitants have occurred since such date. I would remind the committee that the Council
is legally obliged to be consistent in its decision -making in this and other matters
and I would refer you to the reasoning of Lord Justice Mann in the Court of Appeal in
the North Waltz case cited by Mrs Hopkins in appendix 2 to her letters to the committee
in your additional papers. In these circumstances, the parish council believes that the only
proper and legal course open to the committee is to consider the application under the criteria
set out in policy DS4, which in the Council's view is bound to fail.
If the Committee is not so minded, the parish council's position is that the application in any event fails to meet the criteria under policy DS3
on the basis of the grounds set out in Mrs Hopkins' letter and the more than 100 objections lodged.
In particular, it does nothing to enhance the sustainability of the settlement and it
breaches the Council's decarbonisation strategy due to the lack of public transport, the lack
of accessibility to everyday facilities and the risks to pedestrian safety.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, sir.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:21:33
We now move to an objector, representing objectors, Wendy Hopkins from Brodie Planning.Thank you, Chair and members.
Objector - 0:21:51
I trust you have all had an opportunity to read and consider the contents of my letterwhich forms part of the additional papers.
The key issue for members to consider this afternoon
is why the determination of this particular application
differs from the six other applications
for similar residential development in Brockhampton
during the same adopted plan period.
And I should clarify that of these six applications,
three were approved, as the proposals were either
for replacement dwellings or conversion,
rather than introducing new open market dwellings.
The officer report in all six of these cases that have been identified in Brockhampton
as a DS4 location, an open countryside, unsustainable location where new development should be restricted
to certain exceptions such as rural workers dwellings, affordable housing exception sites,
traveller and gypsy sites, replacement dwellings and conversion of rural buildings.
This does not include the three open market dwellings and their outbuild being applied for here.
Members should therefore ask what has changed to justify this significant shift in position,
given the legal requirement for local planning authorities to be consistent in their decision making.
The officer's reasoning and recommendation is clearly at odds with
all previous decisions. The officer report claims that other decisions in
the district have become material and cite a decision at Driftfield as
comparable. However this is misleading and misinforms members in their
decision -making process. To suggest any comparison between the variety or number
of local facilities and services in Cirencester and those found in
Andover's foot is wholly implausible. Not to mention the difference in the road
network used to access these services. No doubt the applicants agent will
seek to dispute these points to persuade members that the application can and
should be considered under policy DS3. However it's evident that this proposal
would urbanise the edge of the settlement,
harming the rural character of the village
and thereby failing to comply with criteria
B and C of policy DS3.
I must therefore urge members to refuse this application
in support of the views expressed by local residents
in the 112 objections received and in line
with the guiding purpose of the planning system
to achieve sustainable development.
This means not opening the floodgates to new development in inappropriate locations where
a practical level of local services and facilities does not exist or is not being short.
Thank you.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:24:58
Next we have the agent representing the agent, Paul Jenkins.Thank you, Chair.
Applicant/Agent - 0:25:06
Good afternoon, members.This application is presented to you following extensive discussions with the Council over
a year or two, both at pre -application stage and during the course of this application.
It has been prepared in collaboration with your experienced officers who we commend for
their input, guidance and positive report recommending approval for the scheme.
The site is within the built -up area of Brockhampton with approximately 80 dwellings in close proximity
surrounding the application site on three sides.
The proposal is for three dwellings in the existing large back garden of our client's house.
Our client has lived in the village for approximately 32 years and wants to look at downsizing.
Policy DS3 of the local plan is applicable here, relating to small -scale residential development in non -principal settlements.
As your own officers confirm, Brockhampton is a non -principal settlement in this case having regard to policy DS3.
As such, this small -scale residential development before you today is acceptable in principle.
The scheme has been developed by renowned local architect Tyack in the Cotswold vernacular
style following the principles of the Cotswold design code.
The proposals are proportionate in scale and complement the form and character of this
part of Brockhampton.
The proposals have been amended to take on board comments from your own conservation
officers who have no objection to the proposal.
As your officer report confirms, the proposed development will have mineral impact on neighbouring
residents and the Council's landscape officer also supports the proposals confirming there
is no material impact on the national landscape.
We do understand there are concerns from residents and the parish about the future development
in Brockhampton.
However, as your officers confirm, housing development in significant numbers and high
density just wouldn't be supported in this location.
These concerns, therefore, should not prevent sensitive, small -scale developments such as
these proposals which have been proven to comply with Policy DS3.
In summary, the report before you is thorough and clear, setting out that the scheme should
be approved and how the proposals comply with the Development Plan, which does allow small -scale
development in villages.
Your own office's report demonstrates support from technical consultees, including the Conservation
Officer, Natural England, Biodiversity Officer, Landscape Officer, Tree Officer and Drenage
Engineers. As such, it is therefore respectfully requested members support their own officer
recommendation and approve the scheme. Thank you.
Thank you very much. And last of the four with five minutes,
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:27:45
Councillor Jeremy Thayer.Ward Member - 0:27:52
Thank you, Jan. As you will already be aware, the application in Blobhampton is hugely concerningfor the vast majority of local residents, including a number of immediate neighbours.
Having received 112 objections, it is of significant relevance in considering this application.
A number of issues have been raised, however, the overriding concern is the six previous
applications for similar small -scale residential developments have been refused or substantially
for the purpose of planning policy.
The question that needs to be addressed is what has now changed to deem this application acceptable in this current adopted plan period?
If the requirement for consistency is to be maintained at birth, all of the six previous applications are pertinent.
The most relevant is the former public house, the Craven Arms.
In refusing the application for the residential conversion of the Craven Arms, the officer's report stated,
Brockhampton is a settlement with no designated settlement boundary and limited everyday facilities other than the Craven Arms public house.
These are limited solely to the village hall.
It lies approximately 2 .7 kilometres from the nearest principal settlement of Andover's Ford and 6 kilometres from Choutenham
and does not benefit from any public transport provision.
Given this, it is considered not to be a sustainable location for new residential development and the local plan policy DS4 applies.
The refused application of filings again states not to be a sustainable location for new residential development.
For the officer to now access the application under DS3 raises the question as to why.
Afore mentioned applications were deemed DS4, however this should now be considered under DS3.
It is reasonable to question why the officer has made the recommendation of permit.
and in the current application of Woodlay stating that the proposal should be considered and would accord with the policy DS3.
Finally, I would like to consider the fact that should this application be approved,
it becomes a material consideration in any subsequent applications for similar developments.
This will inevitably give applications for small -scale residential developments in locations throughout the village and my ward,
without local services or facilities and poor accessibility and a greater chance of receiving a public nation.
Thank you.
Thank you very much to all four of you.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:31:06
Public speakers and local members may now go back to their seats.Thank you.
Thank you.
We now come to members' questions.
So, first, Councillor Watson and then I think of Councillor Mark Harris will stand by.
Councillor Ian Watson - 0:31:58
Going back to the six previous applications, can I confirm that none of them were for thisdevelopment, they were different allocations located in different areas of the village.
Officer - 0:32:15
Through the chair, none of them relate to this application site. I had a quick lookthrough the planning history a few days ago. Since the adoption of the local plan on 3
August 2018, there's only actually been two applications for new build residential development
within the wider parish. You are out of order, madam, I'm so sorry,
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:32:31
but you must maintain silence during the meeting.If you can't hear, what's the point?
Oh, I thought you were trying to challenge the speaker.
If you can't hear.
Officer - 0:32:42
There have been two applications for new buildresidential development within the parish
since the adoption of the local plan six and a half years ago.
This is one application.
The other is the farthing site, which I can refer to later,
which is the final overhead that you saw previously.
The others that are relating to things like replacement
dwellings, we don't actually have a replacement dwellings policy in the local plan. In terms
of DS4, the question is are those six applications, are they all within the heart of the village,
notwithstanding the comments made about the Craven Arms? I found one of the applications
I noted this morning was for replacement dwelling at Hampton, which is in 7 Hampton Parish,
but by no means would you consider that to be anything other than policy DS4. I'm just
going to move on, because I've done this slide, so I might as well explain what it was
because I hinted at it earlier.
So the farthing site is the red ring.
The blue ring that you see is the area around which,
within which I've identified that there are 89.
Yeah, the red ring is the farthing.
Yeah, the red ring is the farthings.
The blue ring is the area towards the heart of the village
where I've calculated the approximately 89 dwellings.
The green ring is the application site.
Now, notwithstanding what was said in terms of the craven arms,
officers wouldn't necessarily disagree with the assertion
that the red site at the farthings would be outside the village.
It's clearly outlying.
I mean, I grew up in a village which is probably in about five
or six different places.
You've, pieces rather, you've got the heart of the village
and you've got various little hamlets round and about.
It's all within the parish.
That doesn't mean that it's all part
of what we would consider a DS3 settlement.
So in terms of DS3 clearly, one of the reasons why officers have come to a recommendation that we've made is because we're aware of the other decisions made throughout the district, not just in Brockhampton or Sevenhampton Parish, but in other places like Eberington and Driffield, the site I referred to in the report.
but I spent this morning writing up a report for a dwelling in Birdlip.
There's lots of other places, Braw Camden, Woodmancote, Perret's Brook, Bledington,
all those settlements across this district have had new dwellings built since,
or guaranteed planning permission since the adoption of the local plan six and a half years ago.
Now those settlements in terms of their size, the scale, their facilities, clearly none of them got the facilities
to be a presentable settlement because they don't have that designation.
Some may have a church, some may have a school, some may have a shop, some may have nothing, some may have a weekly bus, some may have no buses, some may have more access to public transport.
But part of the rationale, nobody is redrafting the local plan here. We are aware of the previous decisions made previously within this parish, but we're also aware of decisions made across the entire district.
and that's what we're seeking to get some consistency for.
Now I've drawn reference in particular to the application
at Driffield because that's an application that you
as a committee determined in April last year.
Driffield has approximately 32 dwellings within it.
It has no facilities other than a church.
It has no public transport.
It is four miles by car to get
to the nearest principal settlement,
which is South Cerny and Dover Street, for example,
is much closer to Brockhampton than that.
And in terms of the relationship between Brockhampton and Winchcombe, which is around five miles,
it's 4 .6 miles to get from Driffield into the centre of Syrncester.
So comparing like for like, it's very difficult because each village has got to take in its
own characteristics, in its own circumstances.
But what officers are trying to do is to strike a balance, to try and make sure that we make
consistent decisions on a district -wide basis in terms of the application of policy DS3.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:36:36
Councillor Mark Harrison and Councillor Andrew McLean stand by.Thank you.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:36:42
I have a clutch of questions.You've been unsurprised to hear.
Can I just check the representative from the parish council described the arrival of the
decision as legally flawed.
I wonder if we could turn to our legal officer and find out if in fact it is legally flawed
or if maybe we're being, that's what I would in my business call marketing puff.
I knew you, Kenton.
Helen Blundell, Legal Services - 0:37:12
So we've obviously had some representations made within the late material. I'm satisfied it's notlegally flawed. A case in the Court of Appeal in 1992, it was actually reported in 1993,
of North Wiltshire District Council and the Secretary of State has cited.
I've just gone to the judgment in that case and I mean all that says is that a previous
decision which is materially indistinguishable from the current case is a material consideration
and it's in the context of planning inspectors' decision in that case, which should be taken
into account in determining whether or not to grant permission.
But the decision -maker is free to depart from an earlier decision and before doing so he
ought to have regard to the importance in ensuring consistent decisions.
I think you've got the view from your officers that they have looked to ensuring consistency
consistency. All that case really says, to be fair to Appendix 2 of the letters, they
are capable of being material consideration. So if we are deciding this case on its own
merits and we are ensuring consistency, then I am satisfied that we are making a decision
which is within the law.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:38:39
Thank you very much. That's the first question. I think you have answered pretty much my secondquestion, and that was about consistency and how one might define it, and I think you have,
it's across the district rather than in a contained area.
But I notice a lot of people who have spoken, objectors, have said, you know, this will
create a precedence and so on and so forth.
Well, clearly the previous decision didn't create a precedence, but I wonder if we can
Could you describe the difference between precedence and consistency?
We want to be consistent but we do judge everything on its own merit.
Could you describe precedence in this context to help understanding how we arrive at these
decisions?
Officer - 0:39:30
What is the fundamental principle of the planning system that you have to judge each case uponits own merits?
I will show you the paragraph 10 .1 of your report. It is basically at the top of most
every report you read. It refers to section 38 .6 of the planning compulsory purchase act
which says that if regard is to the development plan for the purpose of any determination
to...
Could you take it a bit slow?
If regard is to be had...
Only because the public haven't got a copy of the...
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:39:59
Officer - 0:40:01
Well, I'm not sure if they've got agendas or not.Anyway, if regard is to be had to the development plan
for the purpose of any determination
to be made under the Planning Acts,
the determination must be made in accordance with the plan
unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
So the starting point for the termination of this application
is therefore your current adopted local plan.
In terms of precedent, well, anything creates a precedent,
but then you've got to answer things consistently as well.
So just because three houses make if you decide to grant this application it doesn't mean that Brockhampton's then suddenly going to get 10 other applications of three dwellings because the whole purpose of policy DS3 is to allow small -scale development.
And it also states that if there's too much more scale development within a particular village and officers have the right to say that's the basically say it's too much for that particular settlement to accommodate.
I can only actually think of a couple of villages across the district where we've had repeat applications for one here to their example.
One of those for example is Perris Brook where we've now had four DS3 sites permitted for a grand total of seven dwellings since the adoption of the local plan in 2018.
But as all of it is each case on its own merits, that's the starting point for determining this and any other planning application.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:41:18
And then the final one is about the AONB.And I wonder if we could have a look at the picture of the...
You'll have heard me say in meetings,
or people have heard me say in meetings,
there's AONB and there's AONB.
And I think this is clearly a very lovely area.
But the actual house in question, when I...
Yes, so here, it's very developed, isn't it?
And it's very, that's a very, it's a very residential garden.
This isn't a rolling field.
This isn't, you know, where we've had the field disappearing
down to a valley with a little stream there and a cherry tree
and a blossom and all the rest of it.
This is, it's kind of developed anyway in that sense.
So I was quite surprised reading the notes and then looking
at the pictures that there's a difference here.
I know you won't say yes there is AONB and there is AONB but has the current state of the property or the garden, does that have any influence whatsoever in the decision?
Officer - 0:42:24
It's part of the residential curfage of Woodley. I appreciate around 70 % of the district is within the Cotswold National Landscape as we now have to call it.But obviously there are degrees of landscape impact within the national landscape.
Development within the residential curtledge of a property is going to be less harmful to the national landscape stroke AOMB than say building on a greenfield site.
But in terms of this proposal, clearly if we'd have been looking at three dwellings outside the edge of the village on a greenfield site,
Somewhere in there, the farthings, for example, then we might have taken a different view.
This has got residential development on three sides and it is part of the lawful residential
curtillage of an existing property.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:43:13
One more question has just occurred to me and that will be it.Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:43:15
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:43:16
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:43:16
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:43:17
I made a note here, one of the objectors said what has changed.The only thing I could think that has changed since other developments is that we now have
I think something like double the requirement to a property to build in the area.
I don't know if that's landed yet or maybe it can help.
Officer - 0:43:39
Sorry, you're referring to the government's proposed housingCouncillor Patrick Coleman - 0:43:41
requirement,which might be doubled for the Cotswold if their current version goes through, is that right?
Correct.
Officer - 0:43:51
So the council is currently, or the forward planning team in the council is currently preparing its response to that.but no, that isn't, it's obviously a different material consideration in terms of a different
position but that hasn't necessarily influenced this decision specifically. It is one of a
number of factors.
Thank you very much, Councillor Harris.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:44:12
Councillor McLean and Councillor Gary Sowell in standby.Councillor Andrew Maclean - 0:44:15
Thank you, Chair. We heard from the objectors about the lack of public transport in thisarea, something all of us who live in the villages throughout the Cotswolds suffer from.
Two questions arise. One, how much weight should we give to that common problem that
so many of us face? And second, I'm not sure if this Robin bus covers this area, but if
it does, does that actually change our opinion on access to public transport?
Excuse me, I'm not sure what a Robin bus is.
Officer - 0:44:49
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:44:51
Ah, yes. I will intervene here.Oh, well, you don't live in the villages.
I live in the village of Stratton.
It's an on -demand bus in the North Cotswolds
and you use it, you go on the web to organise transport
and it will take you to the nearest transport hub
so you can connect with other transport.
Councillor Andrew Maclean - 0:45:12
But so far I think there's only GCC and their wisdom, they've only put on one for the North Cotswolds.And South Cotswolds as well.
But it's not actually a brilliant service yet, but I just wondered if that changed our opinion.
But obviously it hasn't changed yours because you hadn't heard of it.
Officer - 0:45:30
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:45:32
The avoidance of any doubt, the Robin bus is one that I have used in the South Cotswolds.it's popular, I say popular, for getting to Kemble Station,
which is covered by the South Cotswold bus.
It is a county council initiative,
and one day I might ask how much it actually costs
the public purse and subsidy per person per trip, but I won't.
You're lucky we can't connect to our nearest railway station
Councillor Andrew Maclean - 0:45:57
because it's over the county border in Oxfordshire,but there we are.
Officer - 0:46:04
Accessibility to public transport is one of the,Yes, you're going to have to consider that in your deliberations upon this application.
Those members will be aware of the spread of public transport across wide ranging, largely
rural districts such as this is in some places fairly decent coverage.
If you're near to a main road, in other places it isn't.
I say some of those villages I referred to previously in terms of places where DS3 permission
Permission has been granted for new residential developments since the adoption local plan.
Some of them will have no public transport either or possibly a weekly bus.
Others may have more frequent accessibility.
Part of the reason why I chose Driffield to refer to in my report as a comparison to this
site is that Driffield also has absolutely no public transport whatsoever, but the council
permitted two dwellings there.
Thank you, Councillor McLean.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:47:02
Councillor Salwin and we'll Councillor David Fowl stand by.Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Gary Selwyn - 0:47:07
It's the benefit of not going first is that two of the questions I was going to ask havealready been addressed.
Thank you.
The one remaining question.
I wonder if you could pull up the overhead picture that Councillor...
That one, thank you.
What struck me is that both the officer and I believe the objectors use the word sporadic in terms of development.
And I wondered if you could help me out by explaining in this context what actually you are referring to when you say it's sporadic.
Because it looks to me to be not sporadic.
I mean my personal view is that sporadic is every now and then infrequently.
That doesn't look like a house to me every now and then.
And could you further explain the difference then if it is sporadic development or less than sporadic development
and how that might impact upon our thoughts? Thank you.
Officer - 0:48:08
I'd say loose net may be a better approximation.If I'd move back to the photograph here.
You can see the area within the blue line is where the majority of housing has been concentrated within the village.
But you do have outlying areas and obviously the far things of all of those outlying areas.
As I said, I don't disagree with the decision to refuse the permission principle application that was submitted there.
Villages don't just come in, you know, one shape and size, do they?
Sometimes they have clusters of development, sometimes they don't.
Sometimes they may have a couple of fields in between.
I'll say I refer to the village that I grew up in.
You could go past seven houses and then you'd have three or four fields and have a couple
more houses.
And after a mile or so you'd hit the center of the village where there were about 80,
90, 100 houses.
Not that dissimilar from here, to be honest.
So in terms of the area around this application site, I say that's part of the reason why
we've made the recommendation we've had because it has got a large number of residential properties
around it.
Eighty -nine in that blue ring and that's not every village within the settlement.
that's referred to in the report.
The parish council website refers to the 2011 census
and talks about 158 households and 333 people.
That is pretty similar to a lot of other settlements
across the district where we have committed small -scale
residential development.
Some are much larger, as I said, Aitning and Chadworth,
much larger villages, much greater range of facilities.
Other villages, though, are nowhere near that size
and they have also been considered DS3 compliant.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:49:47
Thank you, Councillor Selwyn. Councillor David Fowles and Councillor Julia Judd to stand by.Thanks, Chairman.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:49:54
I endorse what Councillor Selwyn has said. If you come further down the packing hall, a lot of the questionsyou were going to ask have been asked, principally by Councillor Harris.
I've got two main questions. I've also got some comments about Driffield when we come on to comments.
because the comparison I find a bit confusing.
The first question I have is, what kind of engagement
have we had with the parish council ward member?
Because it seems to me that the basis of the arguments presented
today by the objectives of the parish council
was centred on a fundamental difference of agreement
about the policy that we're using to interpret this application.
and I would like to know what kind of engagement there has been,
and if there was an extended engagement and it has still come to committee,
because we all know the reason it has come to committee
is not because of that difference of opinion,
it is because of the relationship with, sorry,
we don't know the nature of the relationship,
but there is a relationship with one of the ward members.
So my question is, question number one,
what kind of engagement has there been with the community?
because over 100 less of objection,
as the ward member said, is an awful lot of objection
for such a small settlement.
I find it really quite sad that we're here discussing this.
Could you clarify that, Andrew?
Thank you.
Yes, of course.
The parish council has been consulted as normal
Officer - 0:51:20
as they would be on any planning application.In terms of the ward member,
I had a couple of telephone conversations with him.
And indeed, I sent him a delegated report
and he requested the application be referred
to the planning schedule review panel.
The relationship between the applicant and Councillor Turner was then identified a couple
of days before it was due to be heard by the panel so it got pulled from that agenda and
transferred automatically to committee.
In terms of the number of representations, as with all representations I'm going to give
the response that most every planning officer will make.
We will make recommendations based upon our interpretation of policy.
100 letters of support for something that's contrary to policy in the local plan doesn't
mean officers recommend approval and vice versa.
We have made a recommendation.
It doesn't matter how many representations there are in objection.
We have to stick to our principle in terms of what we consider to be the correct interpretation
of policy.
Members may disagree, you may refuse this application, but we as officers have to stick
to what we consider to be the right course of action in terms of interpretation of local
plan policy.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:52:21
Andrew, I wasn't in any way criticising.I just wanted to know, you are the expert, I just wanted to know the type of engagement.
The second is, could I get a better understanding of the interpretation and weight we should place on policy DS3?
Lots of discussion so far on the subject of sustainability, access to public transport and so on.
I'd like to drill down a little bit more in DS3 as defined on 10 .2 on page 22 about the nature of the design,
it being proportionate scale, maintaining and enhancing the patterns of development
complements the form and character of the settlement.
It seems that some of, quite a few of the comments from local residents and objectors
were focused on it not being an appropriate development in terms of its look and feel.
It's very difficult to see from this photograph the type of houses that are there.
I can see there are quite some quite modern ones, but the impression I got from one of
of photographs was that there was quite a lot of old property nearby.
Could you give us a bit more of an idea there?
It seems that that's quite, from where I'm looking, that's quite, could you just give
us a feel for the immediate surrounding area of this site please?
It's fairly mixed.
There's some older properties, there's some listed properties nearby, listed buildings,
Brockhampton Park being one of them, but there are other listed buildings nearby.
You've got a conservation area nearby too.
In terms of the housing, it's a mix probably dating from the 18th, 19th century through,
but there are quite a few properties there that I probably guess have been built post -World
War II as well, when controls of a new house building were far less stringent than they
are these days.
In terms of interpretation of policy DS3, this is a conversation that we seem to have
rather a lot, particularly amongst officers, in terms of is a settlement DS3 compliant
or is it not DS3 compliant?
The pre -application for this proposal was allocated to me and I discussed with two officers
who have been working at authority much longer than 11 years I have been working here as
to whether or not they thought it would be DS3 compliant.
One of them was Mike Napper, the planning and development manager, and his opinion was
that he considered it would.
So it is not just me coming up with this recommendation, it is a joint collective recommendation of
officers as it always is. DS3 has proven a difficult policy to interpret, I have got
to say, in the six and a half years that we have been operating with it. But it is what
it is and it is what we have got to work with. But we are trying to be consistent in the
interpretation of it and the recommendations that we make.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Councillor Fells. Councillor Julia Judd and will
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:55:09
Councillor Michael vanCouncillor Julia Judd - 0:55:15
stand by. Thank you chair. Andrew I'm really glad you brought up the mic napper and I'msure that you remember about three or four years ago we had an extremely tricky one with
DS3. It is a tricky policy. I'm sure this has been an extremely difficult one for you
to actually find your way around. But I'd like to break it down a little bit as to I'm
I'm not quite sure whether DS4 has been struck out for the reasons that you have already
demonstrated.
But I'm not sure if it even, the trouble is with planning, it's subjective.
But I don't think it actually applies to DS3 either.
How does it support or enhance the vitality of the local community?
Well, strictly speaking, any new residential development can help
Officer - 0:56:09
enhance and provide anylocal facilities, but then you've also got to read that in conjunction with paragraph
83 of the NPPF, which is on paragraph 10 .9 of the report.
This is pretty much unchanged since the NPPF was introduced in 2012.
To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it
will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.
Panning policies to identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially
with this will support local services.
Where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support the
village services in a village nearby.
So that has been national policy now for over a decade.
So the MPPF is as part, whilst primacy has been given to the policies in the local plan,
you also have to have regard to the national planning policy framework because that is
and material consideration and determination of this
and any other planning application.
Thank you, Andrew.
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:57:06
So this business of supporting local services,that was the next thing I was going to go on to
because I knew I had a feeling
that you might go down that route.
So Andover'sford is on the other side of a dual carriageway.
The only way you could get to that shop is in a car.
I wouldn't send my children down there on a bicycle,
even in their teenage years, if I could help it.
them, they would have their own way.
But have you been to the shop?
Yes, I have.
Officer - 0:57:35
I get out in the district quite a lot and I have been into the shop in Andover.In terms of accessibility by car, yes, in all likelihood it would.
But then that could probably save the case for every single DS3 compliant application
that we have permitted in this district since 2018.
They can be two, three, four miles away from the nearest principal settlement.
Well, in all realism, they're not going to walk there, are they?
Or they're not going to cycle there.
But we've got to have adherence and consider what the policy says.
You've got to look at other decisions made by the local planning authority.
And you've got to look at what the central government say at paragraph 83,
which I just read out in terms of development in smaller settlements,
supporting facilities in nearby settlements.
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:58:19
Thank you Andrew. And going back to Mike Napper again, I remember him wagging his finger at me over and over and over again saying there is no such thing as precedent.You've gone into it carefully what is I think precedent is therefore a material and yet the Drifield is being used as a precedent but I don't think they're comparable anyway.
Officer - 0:58:47
Would you agree?I don't think we are necessarily using Driftfield as a precedent.
The local plan, policy DS3 sets out a series of criteria which we have to consider but
within the supporting text it sets out how we should consider the sustainability of a
location, the idea of there being a sense of community, there being access to services.
I think the comparison Andrew is making is that
Driftfield has a smaller number of people in the settlement.
It has less services within the settlement.
It has a similar connection to neighboring principal settlements.
Those principal settlements may be larger.
It's not a direct comparison.
I think Andrew is raising it because it's probably,
you know, it's a recent, it was April 2024,
it was decided at this committee, so it's a recent example.
But it's the sustainability criteria we apply to that
settlement may well be similar to, not identical to,
but similar to those that we apply in Brockhampton.
So I don't think we're suggesting it's a precedent,
but as a comparison of applying the same criteria
to a similar settlement and reaching a similar conclusion
or having that help us inform our future assessments,
I think is where the Driffield example,
I'm sure we could probably, maybe not off the top of our heads,
but if you give us a moment,
we could probably list off a number of other examples,
but I think because it would be hopefully more fresh
in members minds, that was the example,
I think we've leaned on a little bit more heavily,
but it is one of, I'm sure, a number of examples.
Thank you, Harrison.
Councillor Michael Vann - 1:00:15
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:00:16
Councillor Michael van En, Councillor Dylice Neill, stand by.Councillor Michael Vann - 1:00:20
Yes, thanks. Could you possibly get up the nice plan which has got the blue ring on it? Blue ring, red ring, green ring?That ring, that one there.
Would you be prepared to accept that the blue ring is drawn somewhat subjectively and tightly?
If it is drawn tightly, that would demonstrate the point that there are a large number of
houses here within the heart of the village, i .e. 89.
The point I was trying to make there, I actually prepared this plan because Councillor Hodgkinson
contacted me after a council meeting and asked for my observations upon the application.
At that time we hadn't formed what the recommendation was going to be.
There were concerns from the conservation team that were being worked through to be
addressed.
The analogy was taken between what?
Refused the farthing, so everything in Brockhampton should be refuged.
I can't think of it off the top of my head, but I know there was another settlement in
this district where we granted the DS3 in one part, but we refused it somewhere else
because it was an outlier, it wasn't actually within the central area of the village.
And so this plan was prepared just to say, well, okay, so the blue line is where the
majority of houses are concentrated within the village.
The green ring shows actually where the application site is.
But yes, the one that we refused is the area outlined in red.
As I said at least twice this afternoon, I don't necessarily disagree with that decision.
I think that's correct.
Yes, I appreciate you say the majority. I think it's the outlier part of it, and so where the ring is, that I regard, do you consider is a subjective view?
Officer - 1:02:13
I think just to clarify the plan is indicative I think Andrew's used it as atrying to show the clustering of settlement of housing within the
settlement as opposed to it being a this is the extent of the settlement I say
the extent of the settlement we draw much more tightly around the village
we know that this by no means is suggesting that all of that land is
potentially the s3 settlement and I think it is say it is more of an
indicative one do you want to jump in I mean also there's a whole point at the
Officer - 1:02:37
There isn't a boundary drawn.There are no boundaries for non -principal settlements in the local plan.
That's part of the reason why that policy got devised in the first place.
As I recall, members were concerned about the houses that had to be built within this
district.
The various principal settlements within the district, particularly Sire and Sester, Fairford,
Tethbury, Lechlade, Morton, Borton and Stowe had all received well excess of 100, in some
houses permitted there, mostly on appeal because we didn't have a five year housing land supply.
And then we were looking at thousands extra houses, and this is seen in the context of
what central government are expecting us to do in the next decade or so.
So DS3 was put in as a way of allowing smaller settlements that didn't have a huge range
of facilities to provide some small scale housing development that would be counted
as windfall figures towards our housing land supply and basically to make sure that there
could be across the entire district in the period of local plan, a few hundred houses
built three here, two there, three there, rather than another 150 house estates on the
edge of one of our principal settlements. That is how we got to where we have DS3 and
the local plan is quite specific. There are no boundaries. That is the problem we have.
It is all down to subjective judgement. Your officers are trying to make a subjective judgement
here that is consistent with decisions made across the entire district, not across the
Tar Parrish 7 Hampton because if we refuse this application and we say an appeal hearing,
all those contradictory ones where you granted permission for a single dwelling and it had
60 houses and 110 people living in it.
Why have you refused this application for three here?
That's why we are trying to be consistent.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:04:32
I will refer to Driffield later.Councillor Michael Vann - 1:04:34
How do you finish, Councillor?Just noting that I intend to refer to Driffield later.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:04:40
Something odd with this.Councillor de Lissen, Councillor Harris, stand by.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:04:50
I am concerned about the mutes.In paragraph, in 10 .49 and 10 .50, you're talking
about the pond on site as being, having good
suitability for breeding great crested newts and
presence is established through DNA analysis.
There's also a letter from the senior district
licensing officer for newts asking for certain
conditions to be attached.
I don't see that the conditions she has requested are attached in the conditions at the end
of the paper, but there is some mention of it in 1050.
The three planning conditions contained within the report must be attached to the planning
consent in verbatim.
I am not quite sure exactly how that works in terms of protecting our little amphibian
friends.
I'll have to check that, but they have signed up for the district licensing scheme, which
Officer - 1:05:58
basically is a blanket authority granted for development that may affect NEWTs within theentire district, but I'll have to double check that with regards to those conditions.
If you're minded to permit the application, I will double check and if they've been omitted
from the recommendation, we will insert them.
But if they've been withdrawn, for example, due to submission
of other information, then we won't add them in.
Thank you.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:06:23
I think that draws a close to members' questions.So we will now move on to members' comments.
I'll just make two, which I hope sound fairly neutral.
The first being that DS3 has been mentioned many times,
and I can recall that it was a councilor initiative where,
at the time most majority of councillors here felt there was a need to allow slow
occasional organic development of our smaller villages. In my own view this
would help delay or prevent such places becoming retirement suburbs in the
country with no community life. Whether or not it's been successful is for
another place in time if at all but it's clear that there will not be an
identical wording when we eventually adopt our next local plan.
Whatever the second point was, I'm going to skip it because I've probably forgotten it.
So who's making comments?
Councillor David Fowles and I think Councillor Mark Harris.
Were you indicating?
I'll probably make some comments but I'm happy to work with Councillor Van.
Councillor Fowles and then Councillor Van.
Coming ahead of Councillor Harris.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:07:34
The irony of DS3 is that you are absolutely right, those of us that were around at the time.And actually, as I recall, it was Councillor Jeremy Thayer's predecessor, Robin Hughes, who fought very hard for it
because we were looking at development in the smaller unsustainable settlements
and we recognised how difficult it would be to interpret that
And in this case, I respect totally Andrew is probably my
senior officer in terms of length of service.
And he's put a lot of effort into this and defended his
decisions very robustly with Harrison.
And thank you for that.
Driffield, just to comment on Driffield, I lived in Driffield.
It was part of the ward I represented for 16 years.
And we fought hard to argue that Driffield was actually a hamlet
rather than a village.
It's tiny and it's not just those two houses that were permitted in Driffield.
There was another conversion of a redundant agricultural farm building and we argued that
actually it was almost a part of Antley Cruces and I actually walked from Driffield to argue
for that particular property to Syrinsester from Driffield.
It's not that far, it's not four kilometres to get to Tesco's and indeed I can never remember
the name of it, Dobby's.
It's actually a short walk.
So never really regarded South Cerny as the closest settlement, it was probably Ambly
Cruces when it did have a shop and parts of Sire ancestor.
I recognise that the centre of Sire ancestor is four kilometres plus but actually it's
about less than a kilometre to some of the shops.
The other thing about Driffield, as I recall,
they were ex -council houses, and it was a plot of land behind.
I think they fell under the umbrella of arguably
affordable units, which felt was important to that settlement
to breathe new life into it.
But I do recognise the comparison with Driffield.
My main concern is really, I think it's finely balanced.
I totally agree with the officers,
but I'm very swayed by the views of the community, the views of the ward member, and I'm probably,
I can't, I personally can't vote to support this application.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:10:03
Thank you, Councillor Fells. Councillor Michael van and Councillor Mark Harris stand by.Councillor Michael Vann - 1:10:10
Yes, um, be helpful if you could get up the plan with the circle again.all three got three circles
quite
accept what you say obviously the case
that within the large circle is the majority
to refer
to the rest as outliers I
is something which I regard as honorable but subjective
So it's in other words it is something which I quite fully accept that Andrew Moody he's reported on that basis.
Excellent 16 page report but I do not accept the subjective view that of the outlier and therefore outside the village.
So what happens within that I think is relevant to what we're discussing this afternoon
choir cottage and farthings
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:11:26
Thank You councillor mark HarrisCouncillor Mark Harris - 1:11:31
Thank you. Well there have been a lot ofObjections and comments I
Actually counted 56 different people on the application not a hundred different people
but I know there are definitely over 100 comments from around 55 people.
Variously, we've raised sustainability.
And yeah, if you're putting 100 houses on the edge of this community,
that's going to create a sustainability issue because you can't satisfy those people.
But if it's unsustainable for three people now,
it's probably unsustainable for the people living there at the moment.
And clearly it isn't here, because they've turned out in numbers
and without needing a bus and so on.
The AONB, or what do we call it? National Landscape.
National Landscape, yeah, there are different grades. In my view there are different grades of it.
I think we're not destroying the AONB. It's not in open fields.
It's within already kind of semi -developed area, or the residential curtilage as described.
It's not legally flawed as the Town Parish Council implied.
We haven't talked about road safety but road safety was raised by the Parish Council so
I think it's worth addressing.
We've done dozens and dozens of these applications over the years now, for me it's about 10 years
and always, always road safety and children getting run over is absolutely definitely
going to happen if this goes ahead.
but it never does and if there was a chance it was going to or very likely to happen,
highways would object to it.
So we can't really shoot it down on those grounds.
I find it very hard to find the weight that pulls it down in favour of refusing this.
So I think I'm minded to vote in favour of it.
Not only that as well, but I find it very hard to defend an appeal if we were trying to ask, if the applicant decided to appeal it, it would be very hard to, I think, to appeal it.
So, I will be supporting the office's recommendation on this unless I hear something earth -shattering from my colleagues in between now and the vote.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:13:55
Councillor Harris, is that a proposal that I can seek a second?Yes, it is.
That is a proposed proposal is to approve the officer's recommendations with a little
bit about a condition that's going to be checked.
Is there a seconder?
Councillor Dilip Neal is to second.
And we'll continue with the discussion.
We have other comments, but once the proposal is made, it's on the table.
Councillor Selwyn and will Councillor Neal stand by?
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Gary Selwyn - 1:14:20
Two just observations to get it off my chest.Quoting you about slow organic developments,
I date long enough on this council to remember when we first had the discussion about the 17 principle settlements.
I disagree with that policy in 2011, I think it was,
on the basis that personally I thought that what would happen is that we would
overweight the amount of development that goes into certain specific locations
and underweight sporadic development throughout the entire district to take
the load off the amount of houses that we were required to build then which is
going to be doubling fairly soon.
Nevertheless I understand having listened to the debate about the
difference between DS3 and DS4 in a way that I hadn't before, so I'm grateful for that.
The other observation is a general one about this committee. We spend a great deal of time
and energy on discussing the great crested newt, do we not? We make a tremendous amount
of examples of where we have to do mitigation for an animal that, according to the last
biodiversity person I talked to, is not actually an endangered species at all and is prevalent
and all over Europe. Nevertheless, it is always a factor in any planning. I would love it
to be not a factor because I think in terms of the impact that development has on people
and residences and communities, it is marginally significant.
And I will close by saying that I sympathise with the comments that Councillor Mark Harris
made. I haven't, unless anything comes up, I haven't seen clear, compelling, convincing
evidence to overturn the officers recommendation on this one. Thank you.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:16:16
Thank you Councillor Selwyn. Councillor Dillis -Neal and then Councillor AndrewCouncillor Dilys Neill - 1:16:21
McLean stand by. Yes I just wanted to say I do sympathise with theobjectives. I live in a village a little bigger than this but nonetheless a
village where you know I walk along the edge of the road there's no footpath
etc etc. We've had various sort of infill development in the village where I
live. And that's how it goes. While I fully sympathise with the objectives, I can't see
a sound planning reason for refusing the officer's opinion. I think looking at it under DS3 is
quite the right thing to do. So that's why I'm happy to second the acceptance of the
Officer's proposal.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:17:04
Councillor McLean and will Councillor Fowls on this occasion for a second bite stand by?Councillor Andrew Maclean - 1:17:14
It's a counter proposal rather than a second bite.Firstly, I'd just like to really object to this map with the circles.
I'm rather reminded when I worked in the civil service and we had a random scatter of dots and economists would put a regression line through it.
Because out beyond the red circle there's actually a lot of older housing,
which I suspect was built for servants of a manor and made them walk along.
So they lived outside.
So I think actually a circle just doesn't represent this religion at all.
And I, I heartily object to this circle. That said, I also,
I'm reminded of a refusal that was done in one of my villages in Great
Rissington of, of a, it was a bit of a similar site,
but it was a field rather than a bit of a garden and it was very much on the edge of the village leading out into
open countryside and would have extended it out. Whereas in this case, it does seem to be an enclosed garden area within.
So therefore, despite my hatred of your diagram, I am minded to go for the approval of it.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:18:24
Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Fells.Charles, you are the next speaker and I think you gave us notice that you intend to move
an alternative proposal if the one before us is rejected. Is that correct? You may speak,
of course.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:18:41
Yes, I would like to speak. On the basis that I was one of the members around when DS3 wascreated, I applaud it, where it is used, and I wish my back garden was this size, because
I think it's more than just a back guy.
I think it's three very significant three bedroom properties which actually sit well within the plot.
But given the nature of the community and my interpretation of DS3,
I, despite the guidance of two very senior officers,
I don't feel it's proportionate and I don't think it maintains and enhances the sustainable patterns of development.
I don't think it complements the form and character of the settlement.
And I take on board what Councillor Harris says about our settlements,
where we don't have public transport, we don't have pubs, we don't have anything.
But just because of that, because there were already a number of houses there,
I don't feel it demonstrably supports or enhances the vitality of the local community.
But I do feel because of the strength of feeling from the community and the parish council and the ward member
that at the very least we should
There should be a counter proposal and that's the one I would like to put forward that it doesn't comply with DS 3
Okay, if we get to that stage
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:20:05
Thank you, strictly speaking. I don't need to seek a second until we get to that stageSo we'll move on to the next speakers
Councillor Ian Watson and Councillor Julia Judd to stand by
Councillor Ian Watson - 1:20:16
Thank you, Chair. I am drawn back thinking about a couple of arguments here. One is theprevious history. The first question I asked, were these on these applications on the same
side of something different? But I always think and was always told when I came into
this committee that we should look at every case on its merits. That is what I came in
to do today. So I don't think that holds a lot of weight for me, a lot of balance, saying
there were six previous and none of them went through. They were different applications,
not the same one. The other one is a policy DS3 which I think is very subjective. We have
had arguments on both sides, but I am very much minded to take the advice of our officers
because what I have heard, that spoke to me. Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Julia Judd and then we may move to the vote depending.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:21:28
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:21:31
Thank you, Chair. I think this is an absolutely first class example as to how important thisplanning committee is here. It's absolutely on the edge, this one. And I feel for the
officer because if this planning committee goes the other way and decides to not take
his recommendation, then he's got to try and put something together that's going to get
past the planning inspector, which is going to be tough. But I've been to Brockhampton
And I have deep, deep sense of unease about this.
Brockhampton is not, that's why I don't like the Driffield precedent.
Brockhampton has far more dignitas.
It is looked after and magnificent.
Driffield isn't.
And I'm very uncomfortable about it actually qualifying for the DS3.
I'm very uncomfortable about and Dover's had been cited as a sustainable community nearby. I mean, I
mean I I
Just don't see that it is it's on the other side of a dual carriageway the shop. I
don't want to be rude about the shop, but you know what I'm saying and
It might have a bus once a week
but I'd like to know a little bit more about the public transport that does offer but I don't think that it is a
a sustainable community nearby.
I'm just too uncomfortable about this application
to give it my support, and that is why we are here.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:23:12
Just as I was about to close the discussion.Councillor McLean, of course.
I just have to put a point of clarification.
Councillor Andrew Maclean - 1:23:19
I agree Andover's Foot is not Brockhampton,but it does actually have an hourly bus service now. It has very good bus
services. So we just we just have to tell the truth but I don't disagree with what
you're saying about Rockhampton.
I think I've had enough discussion now.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:23:40
I just want to make a comment. I mean whilst I respect the residents of Rockhampton.Councillor David Fowles - 1:23:43
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:23:45
Interrupt when the chair is speaking please. Now you know Councillor Fowles, in view of yourgreat service to this council and these people we always allow you more than we
allow others. Please be as brief as you can.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:23:57
I don't know Brockhampton but I do know Driffield and the comment about Dignitas, I think Driffieldis a wonderful settlement and if they are residents of Driffield living here I think
they have great pride in their community just as all our villagers do but I respect your
knowledge of Brockhampton which is ahead of mine. Thank you.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:24:22
We will go to the vote. The proposal is to approve the officer's recommendation.The proposal is to approve the officer's recommendation subject to a potential additional condition
which was mentioned earlier. Please vote now in favour or against or abstain.
Thank you colleagues.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:25:13
The proposal is agreed.The motion is carried by six votes to three as we can see on the screen.
Thank you very much for your patience.
Thank you very much indeed to the public for coming for what must I appreciate be a disappointing
outcome for all of you.
Could I just check that our public questioner left her address for the reply?
Thank you.
She did.
The meeting is not over, of course.
We have a couple more items.
Item number nine, if we need a sites inspection briefing, it's on member the fifth and if
it's a panel, those are the names, Brasington, Coleman, Coard, Judd, Watson. Are we likely
to need one chief?
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:25:59
We've got a couple already for March committee.Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:26:04
Oh yes, keep that date because the chair and vice chair may decide that it's a full panel.So, make a note in the diary.
Sorry.
5th of March.
Turning over, usually 10 o 'clock unless it's a really difficult place to get to.
And finally, that if we require a licensing subcommittee, it will be the 27th of February
and the list of members is not supplied, which is a bit odd.
Perhaps that means there's no licensing subcommittee.
There is no licensing subcommittee on the 27th of February, and without I close the meeting.
- Minutes of Previous Meeting, opens in new tab
- Planning Licensing Committee - 12 February 2025 - Index of Applications, opens in new tab
- Planning & Licensing Committee - 12 February 2025 - Additional Pages, opens in new tab
- 24.00386.FUL - Case Officer Report, opens in new tab
- 1 - 24.00386.FUL - Location Plan, opens in new tab
- 2 - 24.00386.FUL - Proposed Site Block Plan, opens in new tab
- 3 - 24.00386.FUL - Elevations - 1, opens in new tab
- 4 - 24.00386.FUL - Elevations - 2, opens in new tab
- 5 - 24.00386.FUL - Houses 1 and 2 Floor Plans (1), opens in new tab
- 6 - 24.00386.FUL - Houses 1 and 2 Floor Plans (2), opens in new tab
- 7 - 24.00386.FUL - Photographs, opens in new tab
There are currently no votes to display