Planning and Licensing Committee - Wednesday 9 April 2025, 2:00pm - Cotswold District Council Webcasting
Agenda
Slides
Transcript
Map
Resources
Forums
Speakers
Feedback
Votes
Speaking:
Agenda item :
Start of webcast
Slide 1
Agenda item :
1 Apologies
Share this agenda point
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Daryl Corps
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Councillor Julia Judd
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Helen Blundell, Legal Services
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Officer
-
Julia Gibson, Officer
-
Officer
-
Harrison Bowley, Planning
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Julia Gibson, Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
Agenda item :
2 Substitute Members
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
3 Declarations of Interest
Share this agenda point
-
Councillor Julia Judd
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Daryl Corps
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
Agenda item :
4 Minutes
Share this agenda point
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
Agenda item :
5 Chair's Announcements
Agenda item :
6 Public questions
Share this agenda point
-
Public Speaker
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Public Speaker
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
Agenda item :
7 Member questions
Agenda item :
Schedule of Applications
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
8 24/03864/FUL Grove Piece Duntisbourne Leer Cirencester
Share this agenda point
- 24.03864.FUL Case Officer Report
- 1 - 24.03864.FUL - Location Plan
- 2 - 24.03864.FUL - Existing Ground Floor Plan
- 3 - 24.03864.FUL - Existing Elevations
- 4 - 24.03864.FUL - Proposed Ground Floor Plan
- 5 - 24.03864.FUL - Proposed North & South Elevations
- 6 - 24.03864.FUL - Proposed East & West Elevation
- 7 - 24.03864.FUL - Planting Plan
- 8 - 24.03864.FUL - Supporting Information
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Town/Parish Council
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Applicant/Agent
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Ward Member
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Helen Blundell, Legal Services
-
Councillor Julia Judd
-
Helen Blundell, Legal Services
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Julia Judd
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Officer
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Daryl Corps
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Councillor Julia Judd
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Officer
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Officer
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Officer
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Officer
-
Harrison Bowley, Planning
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Officer
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Officer
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Daryl Corps
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Harrison Bowley, Planning
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Julia Judd
-
Officer
-
Councillor Julia Judd
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Officer
-
Harrison Bowley, Planning
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Harrison Bowley, Planning
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
Agenda item :
9 24.03740.FUL Land Parcel Adj To 10 De Havilland Road Upper Rissington
Share this agenda point
- 24.03740.FUL - Case Officer Report
- 1 - 24.03740.FUL- Site Location Plan
- 2 - 24.03740.FUL- Proposed Block Plan
- 3 - 24.03740.FUL- Proposed Ground Floor Plans
- 4 - 24.03740.FUL- Proposed 1st Floor Plans
- 5 - 24.03740.FUL- Proposed 2nd Floor Plans
- 6 - 24.03740.FUL- Proposed Elevations
- 7 - 24.03740.FUL - Proposed Elevations
- 8 - 24.03740.FUL - Proposed Roof Plans
- 9 - 24.03740.FUL - Proposed Sections
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Julia Judd
-
Officer
-
Councillor Julia Judd
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Officer
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Julia Judd
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
Agenda item :
10 Sites Inspection Briefing
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
11 Licensing Sub-Committee
Share this agenda point
-
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 Ray Brassington - 0:00:00
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:00:01
Planning and Licensing Committee. My name is Councillor Ray Brassington and I'm chairof the committee. Members, officers and members of public in attendance are
reminding that this meeting is being live streamed and recorded on the
council's website. Please can members and officers turn their microphones on while
speaking and turn them off so they could be seen and heard. I did have a comment
after the last month's meeting but certain members seem to forget to switch
their microphones off and consequently the camera is stuck on them. So I won't mention
who but if you could try and remember that bit please. I'd also like to remind everybody
present to the chamber to please turn off their mobile phones or put them on silent.
I'd also like to request that the public remain quiet during proceedings and avoid interactions
with committee members if there's an adjournment. If you'd like to leave a meeting part way
through, please keep in mind that proceedings are still taking place and do so quietly.
Toilets can be found to the left of the entrance just around there.
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 will resort to show of hands.
We are not expecting a fire log to sound, so if it does, please exit the building the
way you came in.
The procedure the committee uses is for our planning officers to provide the committee
with any updates on the application along with a presentation.
Any additional pages are published to the council's website.
I will then call out registered speakers to address the committee.
I would like to remind those public 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 ward member will then address the committee and they will have up to five
minutes.
1 Apologies
Moving on to the agenda, first of all I would like to go through the introduction. I have
said who I am so if members could introduce themselves please.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:02:16
Thank you chair. I'm Patrick Coleman, Councillor for Stratton Ward in Syrensister.Councillor David Fowles - 0:02:25
Good afternoon, I'm Councillor David Fowles for the Cong Valley Ward which runs betweenCouncillor Daryl Corps - 0:02:36
Fosbridge and Lechon. Good afternoon, I'm Darragh Caw, Districtup in the North Cotswolds.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:02:46
Hello, I'm Councillor Mark Harris for Abbey Ward in Syrinsester.Councillor Julia Judd - 0:02:52
Good afternoon, I'm Julia Judd from Ermine Ward.Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:03:00
Councillor Dhillon -Sneil, my ward is still in the Wolds with Morgesbury and the Swells in the north of the district.Thank you and officers, Helen.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:03:07
Helen Blundell, Legal Services - 0:03:11
Good afternoon, I'm Helen Blundell, interim head of illegal services and council solicitor.Malcolm.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:03:16
Malcolm Jones from the County Holloways.Officer - 0:03:18
Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:03:22
Julia Gibson, Democratic Services Officer.Officer - 0:03:29
Hi, Jo Reeves, Senior Planning and Conservation Officer.I'm Harrison Bailey, I'm the head of planning services for the council.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:03:33
Thank you.Do we have any apologies?
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:03:37
Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:03:40
Yes, we have apologies from Councillor Vann.Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:03:46
Substitute members? No? No?Declarations of Interest?
2 Substitute Members
Councillor Judd?
3 Declarations of Interest
What about Councillor McLean?
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:03:54
No apologies.Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:04:04
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:04:05
Yes, on the first item I know one of the speakers from the parish council. I say no, she's knownto me. I've never bought her a drink and she's never bought me a drink. So there's that.
The second thing is that both Councillor Fowles, who I have bought a drink but he hasn't bought
me one back. And I are standing for the county division in which this application sits. I
just say that so that's on the table.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:04:37
Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:04:40
I say the first application I'm standing for the county council division that thatCouncillor Ray Brassington - 0:04:47
water system. Thank you. No more decorations of interest?Councillor David Fowles - 0:04:53
I'd just like to confirm that part of what Councillor Harris said was accurate aboutwhere I'm standing, the other part was inaccurate. I'm always available for a drink.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:05:05
We'll remember that. Move on now to minutes. One of the things that's been brought to my4 Minutes
attention is on the list of members we do specify next to the chairman's name
we have chair and next to the vice chair we have vice chair.
Remember that please. Anybody else got anything in the minutes that we want to bring up?
No? Can somebody then propose that we accept them?
5 Chair's Announcements
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:05:37
As you know, Gary Selwyn has recently stepped down as a Councillor and he's served on thePlanning Committee for a number of years.
So I just wanted to record it in the minutes.
Thanks to him for all his work he's done.
He's very studious and he's one of these guys who will look at minutes in great detail and
the applications and if there's any errors or, heaven forbid, duplications or inconsistencies,
he would raise it. So he was a great asset to this committee and he'll be missed. So
that's what. And we've got two new officers here today. So it gives me great pleasure
to mention Helen Martin, who's now Director of Planning. And next to her we have Geraldine
LeCointe, who's Assistant Director. Some of you may know Geraldine because she used to
here before. Is it 20 years ago, Jo -Lynn?
It is 20 years ago.
Yeah.
I remember you when you were working here, because that's when I was working here as well.
Thanks for reminding me how long I've been here.
So thank you very much and I hope you enjoy your time at Cottle District Council. I'm sure you are.
Feel free to leave when you like, if you get bored just wander off out.
I'm sure you're very busy.
Right, we've got it at the next committee, we're going to have a session there on training on five year housing and land supply.
So what we'll do, we'll start probably start about 12 o 'clock and go on to about one -ish.
then have a lunch and then come back here for two o 'clock.
So if you could make a note of that please.
And the final one is, chairs and members, is about me.
I've been your chair now for coming up to four years.
It'll be four years in May.
So I've decided it's time to hand over to somebody else.
So May will be my last planning committee as chair.
So at that meeting I'll say all my thanks and everything, but I just wanted to give you some advanced notice so you're aware of it.
Chair, I'm writing my speech of appreciation as you speak.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:08:31
Thank you. Public questions. Do we have any public questions?6 Public questions
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:08:35
Yes, sir. Would you like to come forward?Public Speaker - 0:09:07
I'll keep that started.Okay.
Right.
I'm Geoff Tappan from Down Ampney, Deputy Chairman of the Neighbourhood Plan, ex -Pourish
Councillor, retired professional and engineer.
I invite the Chairman of this committee and anybody else here to come and visit Down Ampney
where there are three developments going on now.
I will show you where poor planning decisions over recent years have led us to having problems
that will last with us forever.
We now have serious flooding issues.
They need not to have happened.
Why don't we work together?
I will show you where poor site layout, poor decision making,
and a serious lack of enforcement has a major detrimental effect on the village.
Okay.
So the question is, do you accept my invitation?
I'll supply tea, coffee, and chocolate biscuits.
Okay.
One sided because I'm on a pension.
Okay.
Right.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:10:17
I'll speak to our legal department to see whether I can approve it or not.Is that a problem? Okay.
Thank you. The second question?
Yeah. Straight in.
Public Speaker - 0:10:24
Okay. At the last planning committee meeting on March 12th, this committee approved an application for 13 affordable houses on land near the football club.The Down Under Neighbourhood Plan is a legal document and was continually ignored, overruled and not given the weight it should have.
For example, CDC Local Plan Policy H1 states that any new development must have a mix of
both market and affordable homes. This is supported by Neighborhood Plan HP2, both ignored.
Density ignored. Density is supposed to be by negotiation with nine dwellings proposed
by the Parish Council. The village is not against development or affordable houses but
must take into account the Neighborhood Plan, CDC policies and the MPPF. There are 26 affordable
houses being built now. Here was an opportunity for low cost market housing which is also
required in the village. The neighbourhood plan Power 12 states where a planning application
conflicts with an up to date development plan, including any neighbourhood plans, permission
should not usually be granted. Local planning authorities may of course take decisions that
depart from an up to date development plan but only if material considerations in a particular
case indicate that the plan should not be followed.
The concerns regarding the serious sewerage and surface water major problems were downplayed.
It was stated there were only four objections from the village so not much concern.
This is not true as many residents make their comments to the Parish Council.
Ask around and you will probably find in your own wards objections are ignored anyway.
Question – why was the CDC local plan, Downatney neighbourhood plan and design guide and MPPF
so blatantly ignored, which gives dangerous precedence for future applications.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:12:17
Thank you for your question. Can you switch the microphone off, please?I would disagree with you. We don't blatantly disregard. We take everything into consideration
in making a decision. We don't disregard them. We take into consideration the local plan,
MPPF, all the local design codes, everything. And we come to a decision, we don't ignore
it, we consider it. And regarding precedents, every application is considered on their merits,
so there is no question of precedents being given and ignored.
Would you like a written reply? No, no, I don't, it's on record. It's just
that I feel there should be a way that you can actually respond, because I don't necessarily
Thank you.
That's it, thank you.
Members' questions?
Any members' questions?
No.
7 Member questions
Chairman, I didn't know that the gentleman who was going to speak, and I just wanted
to put on record that I actually know him and worked with him as a parish Councillor
for a number of years. Some of the points that he made I took up with the Monitoring
Officer and Helen was there immediately after the last planning
Councillor David Fowles - 0:13:46
meeting, so I could justput that on the record, but I didn't know he was going to speak until literally he came
here. Which actually raises another point. We used to get a sheet that told us who was
speaking and I know there were one or two copies there, but there don't seem to be...
Okay? But it's the only opportunity I've got of saying something under this section. Thank
you.
Councillor Harish.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:14:09
My question is, I wonder if we could, looking at Harrison andCouncillor Mark Harris - 0:14:12
colleagues, create a forumwhere we can have a little bit of backwards and forwards on some of the planning questions.
Because, Councillor Braslin, you're absolutely right about the way we deal with it,
but the speaker obviously wanted to come back on something.
And this is not the place to have a debate about that.
But maybe we could create a space where we could have a debate about it and a conversation
which helps residents understand more the constraints under which we work.
Yeah, it's funny enough, something we're already considering in terms of something
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:14:46
along the lines of a parish forum and equally just general more engagement.And parish council are always welcome to come to us directly as well if they want to discuss
certain issues.
So they can write to us and we can set anything up to discuss and whatever the most appropriate
forum for that might be.
Sounds like something for the new chair.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:15:02
Right, we'll move on to the first application then.Schedule of Applications
This is for the conversion of existing stables to self -built dwelling and associated landscaping
Grove peace, Duntisbourne, Lear, Syrenschester. The applicant is Mrs. Barrowclough, the agent is Morgan Elliott Planning.
Case officer is Joanne Reeve.
8 24/03864/FUL Grove Piece Duntisbourne Leer Cirencester
The
ward member is Councillor Julia Judd and the recommendation is to commit. So now over to Joanne, please.
Officer - 0:15:33
Okay thank you chair. I have no additional pages for updates so I'lljust go straight into my presentation.
Thank you. Okay so this is the application site so it's the hamlet of
Duntisbourne Lea. This is the stable building. I don't know if you can see my
You probably can't see my cursor on there.
The building to the south is a storage barn and the large rectangle below that is actually
a riding arena.
This will make more sense when you see the photographs I have later on.
That's just the plan showing the conservation area boundary which covers Dundasbourne Neer
and Dundasbourne Abbots.
You can see the building just outside of that.
I've also included an aerial photograph because that makes a bit more sense, makes it a bit
more clear.
You can see the barn and the stable building that's to be converted at the top.
Below that you have the storage barn and the large rectangle is the riding arena.
The orange buildings are listed buildings in the actual hamlet of Duntis Bournier itself.
That's a plan of the existing stable building that it is proposed to convert.
And that's the elevation or drawings
That's the barn as converted so there's no increase in footprint
and
That's the proposed elevations
That's the planting scheme these all in the planning committee schedule as well
Okay, so that's the entrance to the site
That's looking down Crabtree Lane into Duntisbourne Lir.
That's looking up the road or the lane.
That's the existing stable building from the lane, so it's orientated back onto the lane.
So you can see from the gates, the Gavel End, front of the stable building.
And that's just going round, so looking east and then going round clockwise you've got
agricultural land where the horses are turned out.
You can just see on the top right the edge of the riding arena, bottom left riding arena
and the roof of the storage barn which is sort of cut into the side of the hill.
You can just see the top of the storage barn there, the roof of it.
And that's just me looking across the gate at the entrance showing the distance between the gable end of the stables of the site.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:18:33
Well now I invite the public speakers.I've got Jane Edwards and Claudia Jones, if you could come forward, please.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:19:12
Okay, so the first speaker is Jane Edwards.Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chair and Councillors.
Town/Parish Council - 0:19:19
My name is Jane Edwards and I am presenting this submission on behalf of the Dunsop onParish Council of which I am Chair.
In addition to our previous comments and having sought advice, this is a brief overview of
concerns of parish council and residents. Dunsborne parish council
strongly objects to this application which presents conflicting
justifications and lacks evidence to comply with national and local planning
policies. Firstly this building was only constructed in 2015 for a question use.
The current application contradicts that need raising concerns about whether it
it was always intended for residential conversion.
The building is not redundant or disused as required by policy,
and approving it would set a dangerous precedent
for incremental development in the open countryside.
Secondly, the structure was not built in accordance
with its original permission, in our view,
and no application has been submitted to regularise it.
This raises serious concerns about its lawfulness,
and we urge members to seek clarification from officers before considering conversion.
Furthermore, in 2020 a storage barn was approved on site based on the necessity of separating horses from equipment due to fire risk.
Now the applicant claims that the same barn can accommodate all equestrian needs, contradicting the original justification.
This inconsistency undermines the credibility of the application.
Additionally, the applicant states that living on site is desirable for equestrian welfare,
yet no lawful rural enterprise exists here.
This is not a planning material consideration and should not be used to justify residential
development.
It represents a change of use from equine to residential land conflicting with NPPF
policies that discourage isolated countryside homes.
Situated within the Cotswold National Landscape, this site, originally an open natural sloping field,
playing a key role in the scenic and historic approach to Dunsport Mere,
a village renowned for its unspoiled heritage and tranquil character.
The proposal further erodes the historical integrity, character and appearance of the area.
Claims that this will tidy the site is not a valid planning justification.
Approving the application would set a damaging precedent threatening the protected status
of this cherished countryside setting.
The circumstances surrounding this application, including the building deviation from approved
plans, its short lifespan and shifting justifications raise serious concerns that may be part of
strategy to secure residential development by incremental means, contrary to the spirit
and purpose of the planning system. Therefore, we respectfully ask members to consider to
reject this application. Thank you for your time.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:22:29
Thank you very much. We now go to Claudia.Applicant/Agent - 0:22:33
Members, thank you for taking the time to listen to my statement in support of the subjectplanning application. I am speaking today on behalf of the applicant. The proposals
The scores before you relate to the conversion of existing redundant stable building to a single self -built dwelling.
The applicant has applied for this planning application to enable herself to live on site permanently whilst tending to her horses within the wider landholding.
Presently the applicant is visiting the site at least twice a day to tend to her horses travelling to and from the site by private car.
As set out within the application submission, the applicant's horse has been subject to a number of emergency call -outs from the vets due to long -term sicknesses.
Due to these illnesses and to provide greater safety for the horses, the applicant transferred her horses to the storage barn further south of the site next to the menage.
Consequently, this has led to the stable building, subject to this application, becoming redundant and surplus to requirements.
The applicant therefore saw an opportunity, whereby she could remain permanently on site, to provide greater care for her horses.
As set out in the officer's report, the principal development is acceptable, meeting the requirements set out in policy EC6.
The building is structurally sound and capable of conversion without any significant alterations or rebuilding proposed.
No extensions are proposed, rather the proposed conversion utilises the existing structure and openings to achieve a modest two -bedroom dwelling and utilises materials that are commensurate to the local environments of the site.
The proposals will not interrupt existing farming operations and will be compatible to the existing equestrian use on site.
The proposals comprise a high quality design and comply with the Cotswold design code,
as well as incorporating energy efficient facets such as solar panels.
The domestic curtledge of the property has been carefully drawn so to not encroach unacceptably
into the open countryside.
This is illustrated on the detailed landscaping plan.
Given this unsympathetic design of the dwelling, the landscape mitigation strategy that accompanies
the application concludes there'll be no harm to the Cotswolds national landscape.
The existing access into the site is deemed safe and suitable.
Notwithstanding this, the Local Highways Authority is raising an objection to the application on
sustainability grounds and safety of pedestrians traveling to and from the site. You will note that
the LPA, whilst taking this comment into account, highlight in the officer's report that the nature
of the proposal complies with the MPPF which allows for the conversion of buildings to
residential use in isolated locations. Consequently the principle of allowing
the conversion of buildings to residential use is permissible in such
locations. This is reflected in policy EC6. Indeed members should be reminded of
paragraph 83 of the MPPF which states where there are groups of smaller
settlements developed in one village may support services in the village
nearby and paragraph 110 which states opportunities for sustainable
transport opportunities for sustainable transport opportunities in rural and
urban areas will vary and they should be taken into account in decision -making.
Overall the applicant upholds that there is a policy support for the conversion
of buildings to residential use that's such that that would override the
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:25:45
highway's objection. Thank you.Councillor Jut, you have five minutes if you want.
Ward Member - 0:25:55
Thank you, chair. I hope I won't be five minutes. So highways have recommended refusal of thisapplication. It might be difficult for members to understand why, but having been involved
with problems in Duns spawn Lear since 2019 when I was first elected, I can tell
you I have an absolute library of photographs of catastrophic situations
from on Crabtree Lane going down into Duns spawn Lear. What happens is that
HGV lorries take the route off the A417. There is a sign on the A417 that almost
looks like an invitation to go down to Crabtree Lane. Often these lorry drivers
are foreign and they don't they don't necessarily look at the signage and what's
happening is that the sat nav is taking them over towards Sapperton and Edgeworth
rather than taking them back to Sarrancest and along the Stroud Road.
Please don't think this is a rare occurrence. It keeps happening. We were
actually on television last year. It was item one on the ITV News and I literally
have probably about 30 photographs of lorries getting stuck down here. What actually happens
is they come down, they get committed, and when they reach the ford, they reverse uphill
between those two high banks. I have seen a mother with a pram with her baby running
up the hill because the lorry driver cannot see her. And it's happened to me myself with
my dogs, and one of my dogs didn't understand why I was trying to get the dog up the bank
through the nettles and the brambles to get out of the way.
This is a smaller lorry in Italy.
But they can't see.
In the summer they can't see because of the leaves, the heavily laden branches from the
leaves.
And in the winter it is muddy and the wheels skid.
And if it's snowy or icy, it is lethal, but it doesn't look it on that beautiful day that
we did our site visit.
it looked absolutely innocuous, but it keeps happening.
There are also two circular village walk routes.
So if you look at the Ordnance Survey Plan,
there are two routes that go up that part of the lane.
It's only the bottom to midsection of the lane,
which actually, funny enough, we're on the presentation.
But there are two routes,
and they're so popular with both villages,
with the Duntisborne Abbots and Duntisborne Leer,
because who doesn't want to go on a circular route?
And most of that circular route is
where people can let their dogs off free,
so they can run around and not cause any damage.
It's also a popular cyclist route,
because I think anybody who's a cyclist
would agree that it's one of the most beautiful places you
can be.
It's also popular with horse riders,
because it's a very heavily equestrian area.
So these situations keep happening,
and it is, don't get me wrong, it is so dangerous.
I've been in that position myself and it is terrifying
when you've got a lorry reversing up a narrow hill
and you can't get out of the way.
The other thing I wanted to say that if you weren't
on the site visit, it is incredibly beautiful, this valley.
I mean, it's a great shame.
The mannage and the, I mean, you could see
from the aerial photograph what a blot on the landscape
this is, but for the increment, to make this situation even more
to turn it into residential and you get the detritus of the next
thing there's a garage or the next thing there's a shed,
and then you've got bins, then you've got children's toys,
coupled with the equestrian elements.
And I know that there's a condition that they can't have
jumps and things like that, but who's going to enforce that?
So it does concern me about how we treat the Cotswold National Landscape like this,
when we're meant to give it great weight should be given to protecting it.
The ten closest properties to this site are all listed except for one.
There were nine listed properties within a few yards.
And the other thing was that the stables, when we visited them,
the permission was given for a tack room, medical rug room
at one end.
Well, that's not a tack room, rug room.
It's a loo and a kitchen.
The other end that's a storage area is an empty room,
and the loose boxes have been moved down to the barn.
But that's, the barn was given permission because, and the agent said at the time, I'm
going to, this is a quote, the British Horse Society and the regulatory reform fire safety
order 2005 highlights the fodder.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:30:59
Sorry, your time's up, sorry.Oh my God, I went on longer than I thought.
Thank you.
If the speakers could return to their seats, please.
Thank you.
Helen Blundell, Legal Services - 0:31:44
Councillor Judd, I'm just going to ask you a quick question.You've obviously given us quite your views on one of the material considerations in this
application.
I need to ask you really whether or not that's a matter you're weighing up in an unbiased
consideration of the application and I need some reassurance that in order for you to
able to vote that you haven't predetermined.
So forgive me for asking, but it's obviously something you
obviously have very strong views on this application.
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:32:18
I have very strong views about housing being supplied in thecountryside, but I have stronger views about people's safety, and
I have very strong views about CNL.
But I will not be, I am not biased on this application.
If this committee asks questions which I haven't considered and the case officer and the senior planning officer
Can provide evidence to me that this is the right application to approve I shall be happy to approve
Helen Blundell, Legal Services - 0:32:48
I'm reassured by that. Thank youCouncillor Ray Brassington - 0:32:53
Thank you. We did have a site's inspection. So I'll ask thoseWho were on the site to give a quick summary?
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:33:03
Thank you chair. The narrowness of the lane and its depth we've seen in the photographand that was certainly the first thing that struck one. The slight ugliness of the gate
is neither here nor there in this application. But the most striking feature was as I think
has already been said, the beauty of the national landscape.
It's not wild or natural in the old -fashioned phrase,
but it is quintessentially, as it's
described in the report here today, high walled slopes
or something.
Very careful and accurate use of words.
You can see for a long way from the site,
and so you can be seen on the site from a long way.
But I could not see, looking level and up, any other dwelling.
You could just see a dwelling on the edge of the village, of the hamlet at the bottom
of the hill.
I was struck that to some extent the beauty of the site has been spoiled by the most recent
structure even though it's been dug into the hill.
It has a rather incongruous metal roof.
And looking at the building itself,
which is proposed to conversion, it
seemed a little odd that a barn so new should
be put forward for conversion.
But as I understand it, that is permitted
as an option under the regime.
So apart from that, we did see horses.
So it's no doubt that it is being used for equine purposes.
And it did seem that if a construction,
or the conversion of this type is to go ahead,
it is wise that there'll be no change to the side of the building
which the road passes most closely to.
So people who do pass on the road.
Finally, it is an incredibly likely used road.
I should think the two or three cars that we arrived and departed in
probably tripled the total number for the day.
And to think that you're barely not even a mile
from the A417, it's a very special spot.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
Councillor Neill.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:35:26
Yes, sorry.Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:35:30
I arrived late for the site inspection briefingdue to the narrowness of the roads.
Despite my sat -nav telling me
it would take a certain amount of time,
I was so nervous about going around those windy lanes
and potentially meeting agricultural traffic.
So I absolutely understand the points made
about the highways.
But we're sort of looking at,
we're also looking at the nature of the building
and the proposed changes to the building.
So clearly the footprint is going to be the same
and I understand it's going to be the same
sort of timber frame.
It's just a question of things like
whether the proposed glazing and the solar panels
are going to have a significant detrimental effect
on the surrounding area.
So that was something that I found interesting.
I thought maybe, perhaps not,
because I didn't see the distant views
and I don't know how significant that would be.
It's for others to suggest it.
Thank you.
Councillor Jude, you're on the sites.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:36:37
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:36:39
Yes, I gatecrushed it, really.But yes, it was the most beautiful day.
And there are idyllic views from the site.
And I noticed that the old stable building,
it's not so old, it's only ten years rebuilt,
but it didn't have any partitions.
And the stabling has been moved down to the barn,
which was a surprise.
That's all I can say.
Thank you.
Okay. Thank you.
Anybody else?
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:37:25
No. What was that?I mean, visit the site.
That was actually.
Oh, separately.
Obviously, I was on the site to visit.
It is definitely in the beautiful part of the countryside there.
That's why it's in the Cotswolds natural landscape. You can clearly see that.
This particular building is set back from a road, so you can't easily see it unless you're by the gate.
The thing that I noticed strongly was the narrowness of a road going down there.
You can only have one vehicle going down there at a time.
There's not that many places to pass nearby, so that is a concern.
So, right, now we move on to members' questions.
I'd like members to ask highways questions first, because our highways officer has to depart.
So, if you've got any questions about highways, can you ask them now, please?
Councillor Fowles.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:38:23
Well, there's obviously a detailed report in the overall application, but I wondered,since we've got him here, if we could hear from him directly, Chairman, in terms of – it's
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:38:36
Councillor David Fowles - 0:38:36
very clear in the report that there are fundamental concerns, and you've taken the trouble tocome here.
It would be very nice to hear what you've got to say, personally.
I mean, as in our recommendation, I mean, as you saw yourselves when you were out there,
Officer - 0:38:51
I mean, it's narrow, it's difficult to negotiate. The banks clearly make it difficult for pedestrians,it's not a place where you can step out of the way up onto a verge or anywhere else.
You've got a bank that you can't get up. As you say, there are probably more pedestrians
than you would expect in this area because of the circular walks that are there.
I must admit I wasn't aware of the sat -nav issue.
I didn't catch the ITV news, but it's not unsurprising these things happen around the place.
The suggestion here in the report is there's quite a lot of traffic coming and going at the moment,
which will for people to look after the horses, which will stop because they'll be living on site.
That may well be the case. It's only the case if you put a personal consent condition on it.
Because otherwise you can have the house sold off and the horse is still running.
So that's certainly an option.
In terms of the overall safety, the definition that we have to use is an unacceptable impact on highway safety.
It's never been defined. It's a personal opinion if you like.
Our view is that additional traffic and the change in the type of traffic.
I mean you've got a house which has got dog walkers, joggers, children, which isn't there at the moment.
So there is a fundamental change in the type of traffic that's likely to appear on the road.
Whether or not the numbers, however the numbers pan out, it's still different.
and you get more deliveries. You've got your Amazon van, I don't know what your
house is like but they're coming two, three times a day to mine.
You'll spend a lot of money.
No, it's a wife's money.
They'll spend it mine.
Yeah, so you've got all that sort of the different patterns, the different timings that it will change.
The road itself clearly isn't suitable to take a significant amount of traffic.
there is an argument to say this isn't a significant amount.
Depends how you dress it up.
As you said, there may be very little at the moment at certain times of day when you're there,
so this would be a significant percentage increase.
6 or 8 may not be a big number.
You can say that the probability of a serious collision is low,
because traffic speeds...
but is highway safety a probability argument or is it something more fundamental?
These are all decisions that you have to make and they're not easy and they're not easily defined.
So I hope that's muddied the waters for you.
I just asked some magic.
On page 17 it says, 6 -3, the application should be refused on sustainability and highway safety grounds.
Do you confirm that that is your view?
Councillor David Fowles - 0:41:58
When I heard from the ward member about the pram, well the dog story was worrying enough,but the pram and someone having to run back up the hill.
I found that very scary.
I mean, there's two issues.
Please lift your microphone off, please, Councillor Foulton.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:42:11
Officer - 0:42:14
I mean, there are issues around this,because the policies are conflicting.
I mean, you've got all the policies listed in front of you.
You've got, even in the NPPF, you've got a policy
that says you will make provision for all,
so it's got to be able to walk to it and cycle to it.
You've also got a policy that says
you've got to convert existing buildings.
It's not clear. You've got policies like that in your local plan.
That some say you need to consider highway safety.
You've also got policies saying you need to approve this sort of thing.
They're all listed in your report. You've all seen them before.
There's not a clear answer. It's a decision that, as they say, you have to weigh in the balance.
And yes, is it sustainable?
Definition of sustainability in purely transport terms.
You've got to travel by foot, cycle and public transport.
So basically, no it's not.
But there are other policies that you may consider outweigh that, you may consider don't
outweigh that.
The safety issue you've seen, again, you have to say is it probable that there will be a
problem?
Is it a principle that there will be a problem?
I would go back and say it's a fundamentally unsafe situation.
the road isn't suitable for additional traffic be it a big number or a small number.
But there is also an argument that you've had presented to you here.
It's a small number, it doesn't really matter.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Caulf.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:43:40
Yes, thank you, Chair.Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:43:44
I just want to ask a question relating to this lane.I have been down there only once in my life, I'm afraid.
What is it, a 60 down there?
Or 20?
I can't remember what the speed limit is.
I'm guessing it is a national speed limit.
Not that you can reach that speed.
Thank you.
Thank you, members.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:44:08
Questions on Councillor Neill?Yes, I don't know who can answer this question or if it is possible to answer it.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:44:17
I was sort of convinced by the idea that there would be areduced number of vehicles if the owner was living on site.
But you've reminded us of delivery vehicles, et cetera,
et cetera.
Do we know if there are things like refuse collection vehicles
going up that road at the moment, postal vehicles,
or do they not use, those would be extra vehicles again?
I'm just thinking it would be jolly difficult for a refuse vehicle to
maneuver up and around in that road. I'll be honest I don't know if the refuse
Officer - 0:44:55
vehicle goes up there it's I think it's your vehicles actually if as you sayit's going to be very difficult for them to do that but if they might be going on
the way to be seen go there.
Councillor Harris.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:45:12
Chair, do you want, as a point of clarification, I think CouncillorCouncillor Mark Harris - 0:45:15
Judd might usefully makeon that point, which might inform, answer that question and fill in there.
Would that be okay if she did that?
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:45:25
Well, I was only going to say I don't live there, so I don't actually know that the biglorries go down there or whether they send a small lorry.
As an aside, I do know that every week the collections aren't made.
Awkward.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:45:38
Thanks very much.For me this feels quite profound in a way because very often you're here and you're justifying why,
what we think in a prima facie way, we're going, that looks dangerous to us.
And you're going, well it's not actually because this, that, or the other.
And then, and I've been there, I went on my motorbike and the biggest problem with me was the surface on a bike.
and yes, it's very narrow and you've got to be careful.
But it really feels, it's quite unusual that you say something
like this to us in the way that you do.
I think my colleagues would agree.
I just wonder if you have anything to add on that
or any comment on that.
I don't think so, to be honest.
Officer - 0:46:21
I'm not entirely sure the point you're making, but.Okay. Any more questions on highways?
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:46:25
I've just got one.The barn is obviously redundant at the moment, but it can be used legitimately.
And if it was used, there would be some vehicle movements.
So what is the big difference between the site having vehicular use or it being used as residential?
What's the difference between the use of the barn or against residential?
Officer - 0:46:57
It's the difference in, I mean, you can take a view on whether there will be a difference in total number, but it's also the difference in the type.You're going to get more vulnerable road users, so you've got kids, you've got dog walkers, you've got possibly cyclists, possibly joggers.
You've also got delivery vehicles, postman's now got to go up there, refuse vehicles now got to get there, all those sort of things.
So it's a different type of traffic.
You can take a view as to whether you think that's
significant enough to want to refuse or whether you may think
it actually doesn't really matter.
Our view is that, yes, it does matter.
But in terms of total numbers, I mean, you're looking at probably
for the dwelling, as I said, in I think six to eight,
probably a day, depending on different day.
That's an average over the day.
So some days you'll get a lot more, some you'll get a lot less.
Okay, thank you very much.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:47:49
Do we have any more highways questions?No? Okay. Well, thank you very much, Malcolm.
Other questions, please?
Councillor Coleman.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:48:05
Jerry, I think we could we have a look at the slide that shows the most map as it were.Possibly one of the first slides because I formed the impression that actually,
Currently there's no need for commercial vehicles other than when they're
delivering fodder for the horses to be on that road at all given that it
connects to other roads at the top and it connects to the hamlet at the bottom
and therefore there's alternative route. Well the bin people and the buses go
along the bottom obviously and don't have to climb that road and so it seems
to me, I'm just asking I suppose the case officer is my question, are we actually introducing
for the first time a central need for vehicles other than those bringing people to ride and
bringing fodder for the horses and the owners coming to look after the horses. We're actually
those, the only vehicles that absolutely have to use that road and we're adding some more
Officer - 0:49:20
we agree this. Is that a fair comment? I think just to clarify so there's anextant equestrian use on the site and so even though the stable is disused there
are horses kept in the barn and also out to pasture on that site so it's my
understanding that the applicant currently visits the site twice a day
So that's four vehicle journeys.
It's also my understanding that Crabtree Lane is one of the main routes into
Duntersbourne near of the A417, so the Ermin way, the Roman road.
There's a limited bus service I believe uses that road.
And I'm assuming with refuge collection it would be a small, a smaller lorry.
But it's it is my understanding that people are living in Duntus -Bourn -Leagh would use that
That lane to access properties
Councillor Harris
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:50:24
Thank you. I have a very quick question for Highways again, which cameCouncillor Mark Harris - 0:50:26
to my mind the minute you left the roomDo you mind if I asked it?
if if this was permitted
because it was felt that the
the benefits and whatever else outweighed the danger that you highlighted.
Are there conditions that are not in this report that you would like to see?
For example, displays, maybe some path work and so on and so on.
Question?
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:51:03
Councillor Foes.Councillor David Fowles - 0:51:08
Could I ask the case officer to expand on, well, a lot was made by the parish council,indeed the ward member, about the cuts of the national landscape and the impact this
would have and those of you who visited the site, starting with the Deputy Chairman, talked
about the beauty of this location.
Just interested to know in 1037 and 1039, where it says, the wider National Historic
Land State states that development will be permitted where it does not have a significant
detrimental impact on the natural and historic landscape.
In your opinion, is that the case with this application?
Because it seems to me, I know the area very well for perhaps the reasons that were stated by Councillor Harris earlier.
I just think we need to get a real handle on the impact that this is going to have given how prominent it is,
as commented on by various people who attended the site meeting.
Yes, so undoubtedly, I mean the Dungesbourne is absolutely beautiful.
It's a stunning part of the country and it's recognised as that by being included within the Cotswolds National Landscape.
It's a beautiful spot and the day we visited it was absolutely stunning.
But what I would say is that you've got that established extant equestrian use on site.
The existing stable building was built in 2015 but it replaced an earlier stable building which dated from the late 1990s.
We've also got the riding arena which was granted permission in 2018 and then the storage barn in 2020.
Officer - 0:53:00
So you've had sort of like the incremental development of the sites as part of those proposals.There have been landscape being strategies and there is planting on sites to mitigate.
And so the visual impact there are concerns.
I mean, obviously the building itself is not being enlarged or extended.
I know there's been some concerns regarding glazing, but it is a single story building.
with an eaves height of 2 .5 meters.
So given there's a sort of the topography of the sites
combined with the relatively modest utilitarian scale
of the building and the existing planting,
I think that sort of limits the wider impact.
The sites contained and there's no encroachment
of the built form into the wider landscape
other than what's existing, in my opinion.
Thank you.
Councillor Harris.
Thank you.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:53:56
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:53:57
Having dealt with highways, I have a few questions for the officer.So the application says that the stables or the report says the stables are redundant
and disused, which sort of deal is one of that's one of the points in NPPF 84, which
is kind of an exception to the rule if you want.
And we have the storage barn down the way.
So am I right in saying that there's not going to be horses
there anymore?
Or are the horses being kept in the storage barn?
And the reason I ask this is because in the application
for the storage barn where people were concerned about it,
it said there's no evidence to suggest that the barn will
be used for anything other than storage or equestrian
equipment or fodder.
And pursuant to that, and that would seem logical,
And the reason why I wouldn't think that the horses would be kept there is because the
legislation that Councillor Julia Judd was truncated on says, and this is from the British
Horse Federation Foundation, says, never stable animals in barns alongside haste or in vehicles.
And it seems odd that the applicant wants to be there to look after the horses, but
the same time is quite happy to quite dangerously put them contrary to the
Federation's regulations. So are there horses going to be there or not?
Yes, currently there are four horses stabled on site.
Sorry, is that in the existing? That's in the barn, so you're correct. So the barn, the
storage barn was built in circa 2020. I'm not sure when the horses were moved from
Officer - 0:55:38
the stables into the barn but they're now stabled in the barn which opens outonto the riding arena and so yes the horses are there but they have been
relocated from the stables to the barn. Okay thank you and if the applicant
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:55:54
decided down the line that they didn't want to stable horses there anymorecould they apply the same rule that the building is now redundant disused and
that into a pleasant thing because it's already there would that be possible I
Officer - 0:56:09
mean they could make the application but I mean every application has to beassessed on its own merits but I think we have concerns about that also they've
applied for a self -build exemption so you know that the whole purpose is them
to live on site to look after their horses,
but we can't make them.
Not do that.
Thank you.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:56:41
On the self -build element, the self -build exemption,I'm rightly saying that I think self -build, the definition
really is that you build it yourself,
or you get somebody to build it for you on land
that you own at the time.
And as long as you stay there and it's
your principal residence for three years,
it's a self -build after three years you can go and put it on the open market
that's correct okay and I'm also correct is this is this a business or not
Officer - 0:57:08
there's no business going on there it's a private equestrian use if itCouncillor Mark Harris - 0:57:13
were if ifmy colleagues were minded to permit or we were minded from it sorry are there
There's a number of conditions that I know that residents are concerned about.
The first is could we look at some fairly extensive highways conditions that would,
as far as possible, mitigate what's going on there.
The second is, and I know there's a concern in the area about the amount of holiday lets and buildings
that are being just created and then rented out.
Is there a way we can condition it not to be a holiday letter?
I'll get to the end and then you can answer.
And condition no further developments.
I notice we've got the red line, which is what we're looking
at today, but can we condition the blue line
within the blue line as well for the purposes of this?
And finally, could we condition if it's no longer used
for horses that the manege and associated bits be returned to?
There you go.
Thanks.
Okay.
You may have to remind me of something.
Officer - 0:58:21
So the red light and the red line defines the application site.So if planning permission were to be granted for the conversion
of the staples to a dwelling, I've recommended conditions
removing permitted development rights.
So any further development within the red line would be
subject to an application for planning permission.
Currently, anything outside the blue line, you don't get many permitted development rights,
if any, relating to equestrian development.
So, anything in that area, if somebody wanted to build another barn or a storage, would
again be subject to planning permission.
So we have those elements of control.
We could potentially consider, if minded to grant permission, an equestrian sort of use
a tie almost for that the premises should only be used in connection with the established equestrian
use on site so almost a bit like an agricultural workers tie but in relation to equestrian
development. I don't know if Harry wants to jump in there. I was just going to add to that if that
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:59:29
was what members are minded to go down I think we're in a better position to resolve to permitthe application subject to agreeing that with the applicant only because that isn't what the
description of development says. So if members feel it would only be made acceptable by attaching
that condition, I'd recommend going down the route of resolving to grant permission subject
to us agreeing that with the applicant. And if we can't bring it back, agree with the
applicant, we can either agree an alternative method to agree something different with the
chair or we could bring it back to committee at a later date. So I just would bear that
in mind if that's the route you're going down.
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:00:00
The final one was just the points about how we would, how one would resolve any highwaysissues of which there may be quite a few.
Officer - 1:00:09
The difficulty with that is the cost as to whether it's reasonable to impose,because any work you need to do is going to be significantly expensive,
and to whether that's a reasonable imposition on a development of this size is the difficulty in that.
Councillor Neill, were you...
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:00:26
Yes, I did put my hands up, yes, thank you very much.Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:00:30
Yes, the first thing I wanted to know is the horses were moved down from the original stablesto a building which had permission as a barn.
Does stabling come within the same group of applications as the barn?
Is it something that was perfectly legal for the applicant to do?
Officer - 1:00:50
Yes, so the planning permission was granted for a storage barn in association with theestablished equestrian use.
Unfortunately there wasn't a condition on that planning permission saying that
horses shall not be stabled in that building. So it's part and parcel of the
equestrian, the extant equestrian use. Okay so that's that's acceptable. The
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:01:13
second thing is, when I did the visit I thought oh well the actual buildingisn't going to change that much apart from as we discussed the glazing etc etc
but there will be a domestic garden around it so there is the potential for
a lot of domestic paraphernalia going on in the garden which would definitely
alter the appearance it would go from being a equestrian appearance to being a
domestic appearance I just and it seems yeah I wonder if you could just sort of
Officer - 1:01:51
comment on that. So I've recommended a condition removing... Number 3.Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:01:58
Officer - 1:01:58
Yes, thank you Ray. So no extensions, dormers,porches, outbuildings, containers, chimneys or flues. So that's no additional built
form within the curtledge of the site, so the red line. Unfortunately when it comes
to sort of planting and you know sort of flower borders and things like that
wouldn't fall within the remit of development so we wouldn't have control
on that anyway so yeah that that's difficult to control that if you know
there was a flower border or something can say say yes because it's not just
flowers it's you know domestic furniture and parasols and I don't know what
barbecues which would which would significantly alter the appearance of
that particular area.
As that would not fall within the remits of development, it's difficult to control.
I think when we were on site, there was a table and some metal chairs there, but because
those are movable structures, we wouldn't class those as developments in their own right.
I obviously appreciate what you're saying, but it's just difficult for how we can control
that through the planning system.
Okay, thanks very much.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:03:12
And then finally, there was mention about providing some swallow caps, I think, andI didn't actually see that in the conditions, although I could have missed it.
Can you catch that?
Officer - 1:03:23
I seemed to, when I was looking at the thing about biodiversity, I think there was a suggestionthat provisions should be made for swallows, because I think there was a nesting in the
and I didn't actually see that in the conditions as I could have missed it.
There's one in accordance with the ecological appraisal, eterna, samayti,
one back box submitted. It may be that I have missed that, but we could put, we could include
of in the back box condition which is condition 12 that yes swallows the
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:04:12
swallow boxes as well. Thank you. Councillor Caulk. Thank you. Just a smallCouncillor Daryl Corps - 1:04:17
question to the officer regarding the site description states that the currentstable building occupies an elevated position does that mean that it's very
much visible from other areas within that terrain and landscape.
So therefore, would the change of use from stabling to residential property increase
the light pollution from that building that it wouldn't necessarily have when it's used
for stabling agricultural use?
Officer - 1:04:55
So the building, you're coming down Crabtree Lane and it's on your left hand side, so yesyou're coming down the side of a hill.
I think because it's single storey the visual impact is currently limited, I mean there's
definitely, you can see it from various spots across, but because of the planting that limits
the visual impact. I think a two -story building in that location would be very
visible but because it is a single -story stable building it's linear it's some
the kind of the proportions that we'd expect in that sort of environment. The
glazing again from from light spill potential there would be some impact but
again I think it would be minimal because of the single -story nature of
the stable building it has an eaves height of 2 .5 meters but I put a
condition on recommending no roof lights because then you'll get them to spill up
so on balance as it is I think it would be acceptable but I sort of take on
board that yes about a taller building potentially and reflights yes. Would have
an impact on dark skies? Yes greater impact than what's there now yes.
Councillor Fowls.
Thank you, Chairman.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:06:15
Councillor David Fowles - 1:06:16
When this policy came into conversion of rural buildings,I always thought of that as old stone barns, rather than buildings that were put up in 2015.
And I always thought that definition was redundant farm building because
Agricultural vehicles have got bigger and therefore you can't get them in and out of a stone barn etc. etc.
Whereas this is, as far as I understand it, this is a perfectly serviceable, structurally sound,
because it says so in the report, building that was put up in 2015 for a specific use.
And because circumstances have changed, the building isn't redundant as such,
it's just surplus to requirements in terms of this application. That's correct, isn't it?
So the question I'm going to ask,
because I'm going to probably make it more of a comment
when we come to comments, is quite interesting to be
in a situation where you can put up a stable building in 2015
or 2025 and 10 years later come along and so on.
So the question I was going to ask is, if this,
we would not have permitted a building,
a residential building there originally,
would we in this location?
It's the fact that it is a conversion of in quotes a redundant building, but if it was
originally intended as a dwelling we would not have permitted it would we
Yes, that's correct. So a new build dwelling house in that location
One minute question but that's the answer
Would not be would be contrary to policy, but the conversion of existing buildings
Is not considered contrary to policy and the policy does not distinguish between old and new
Thank you very much
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:08:05
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:08:08
finally Councillor Harris. Thank you so you're saying that we can't controlwhat's outside the, A we can't control what's outside the boundary of the
within with this application to the boundary is the actual building itself
I think or it's the footprint of the building yeah but we can't control what
happens outside that as such or we can't condition it is that right? So the
application sites the red line identifies the application site so if
we're removing permitted development rights it's within the red line there
isn't a lot an awful lot I'm trying to think off the top of my head that could
be built within the blue line without planning permission anyway potentially
fences or means of enclosure but a building in the blue line would require
permission. I think what I was getting at was that in that so with the and the
point that Councillor Neill said about the sort of garden paraphernalia and so
on so I could put my great big gas barbecue there I could put a pile of
logs by the front door and give it you know and stick a trellis up and have
roses going around it so if you looked at it from the other side it'd be to all
intents and purposes a house not a what was a stable and I could have a lot of
So we can't control that, what they do there, but what we can control here is we can control
the impact on the conservation area and the AONB as we used to call it, potentially by
saying well let's not create that because the...
And then your question is?
Yeah, but can we do that?
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:09:43
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:09:44
So what I'm saying is we can control what happens there by not permitting it.Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:09:54
Yes, effectively. You will inevitably whenever you change the use of land from a questionagricultural to residential, it does come with a change of character. You introduce
domestic garden, you introduce, as you say, all those domestic things that are not development
that we don't control in planning but that are inherently related to those, the use as
residential. So as I say, I think we as officers are satisfied that because we've, that residential
The curtilage is tightly drawn around the building, the extent of the garden is more
limited, it is tucked away to the side behind the building.
We are satisfied that that limit is not going to result in harm to the national landscape
but you are correct, it is nevertheless going to change that character and if members have
concern that that change in character is so significant that it would lead to harm then
yes your option is effectively to refuse the application.
Thank you.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:10:43
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:10:50
I am a little bit, my logical mind is a bit confused about the business of a redundantbuilding and then the barn which was given reasons to be built because the detritus that
with the horses shouldn't be kept by the horses and that was, you know, one of the
planning statements and yet the horses have been moved down to the barn. I mean
does that really make a building redundant just because you decide not to
have use it for I mean that's not a redundant building that's a change of plan.
Officer - 1:11:34
I think the the policy actually refers to redundant and disused and obviouslydisused is more open to interpretation. I mean redundant starts to sound, is more
so potentially abandoned or the site has been abandoned whereas this is a
building, an existing building which is disused but because the policy
Yeah, it uses both.
But it's not our news.
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:12:00
There's a kitchen in there and a loo.And I mean it was cleared out for our site visit.
It doesn't mean to say it's redundant.
I think we've answered all those questions enough.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:12:12
We've finished on questions.If you want to depart, we're most grateful for your presence.
Things have moved on.
You're right. Okay, thank you very much. Comments now please, Members.
Councillor Neill.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:12:31
No, it was just, of course you can't just move some decision from, chop something up from one application to another,but in our own application we had a condition that said no domestic paraphernalia or moveable structures shall be erected etc etc.
And I just wondered if that was possible on a piece that was meant...
Yeah. Can you put that in as a condition?
That was a question.
Oh, sorry.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:13:00
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:13:02
No domestic paraphernalia or movable structure shall be erected, placed, constructed or sited in the area as shown.We can only introduce that within the red line, not within the blue line, is my understanding.
only within the application sites. We've already got conditions recommending, so we could add
it as a further condition because we've already got conditions saying no buildings, but you
Officer - 1:13:25
can't condition outside the red line.I'd also, I know they use the word paraphernalia, I don't have that application in front of
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:13:33
me. I would always strongly discourage using the word paraphernalia because it just getsinto this grey area of what is development and what isn't. I don't have the application
you're looking at in front of me, so I can't necessarily comment on exactly why it was used or what the reasoning was there,
but my advice to the committee was to always be... I would always avoid using the word because you're just in this grey area where it
is questionable whether it's enforceable, whether the condition is sound. I don't, yeah,
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:13:58
I would very much discourage using the word paraphernalia if you might include that condition.Questions?
Councillor Harris?
No one comments on it, yeah. Sorry, comments. Councillor Harris.
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:14:10
Well, I think there's a difference between disused and unused.You know, unused is something you're not using at the moment.
Disused has been abandoned.
It's as exactly as Councillor Fowle says, the sort of thing that I think NPPF 84 is designed for.
And I really don't, this is I think a loophole in my view.
So I do agree with that.
Highways has recommended refusal, which is kind of highly unusual, you know.
So that was sort of my point.
This is so unusual.
And it's been indicated that mitigating that would be just
prohibitive for the applicant.
We've also heard that, well, we can't really control what
happens in terms of the garden area and so on and so forth.
There's nothing really, I'm not saying they would,
and it's casting no aspersions on the applicant whatsoever,
but there's nothing to stop any future resident putting up at
They land the eye of a tree and building a great new border, as some people seem to do.
So it's inevitably, as we've heard from officers, going to have an impact on this
area of outstanding natural beauty and on the edge of the conservation area.
So I – dear, I – unusually for me, I'd like to recommend that we refuse the officers
We reject the officer's recommendation to permit this and refuse this.
Can you specify the planning reasons for the activity?
Yes. So the reasons are for highways safety, as indicated by the highways office advice from highways.
And second, in my view anyway, is the impact on the area of outstanding natural beauty and conservation area, which abuts it.
And as we know, although the conservation area stops on that road, you can look into it and you can look across from conservation area.
I don't know if Councillor Val has anything to add to that.
The one that I'm struggling with, because I would have said exactly those two things,
and I'm pleased to hear Councillor Harris say that,
but the one that we seem to be struggling with is the interpretation of Local Plan Policy EC6,
which is a building that was given permission in 2015 as a stable block,
and it's not a redundant building.
But I don't know whether there's a form of words that allows us to incorporate that.
I think it's the interpretation of that policy.
And I'm really worried that, I know we don't talk about precedent here, but I'm not suggesting
for a minute to the applicant that this is a loophole, but I've got that feeling and
that's why I'm very keen to support Councillor Harris as his seconder.
If you feel that the two reasons is sufficient, then fine, but I do think it's this whole
interpretation of conversion of rural buildings which as I've already said I
think of those as old stone buildings not new modern buildings that
Councillor David Fowles - 1:17:24
have justfor circumstances if someone else owned that site they could perfectly easily
use it as a stable or is that too complicated so if the two reasons
council Harris is given sufficient then I totally support support that proposal
but I don't think we could comment on what was sufficient and art at
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:17:41
yourCouncillor David Fowles - 1:17:49
proposal. Councillor Gore? No I mean all I was gonna say was when highwaysrecommend refused in such a strong way I think we would be we should go with the
experts advice very much. I'm just going to jump in there this is obviously fine
we have to bear in mind the five -year housing land supply so because this
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:18:11
we're now moving towards recommendation of refusal.I'm just going to make sure we're fully aware
of the decision we're making.
So because we no longer as a council
can demonstrate a five -year housing amount of supply,
we have to apply the presumption in favor
of sustainable development,
also known as the tilted balance.
So I don't know if you have MPPF's in front of you,
but it will be paragraph 11D is what we're looking at.
Apologies if you already know this,
but I just want to make sure we're very clear.
For with paragraph 11D,
we have to effectively tilt the balance in favor
of permitting an application.
It supplies criteria one and two that are reasons to continue to
refuse a planning application.
So the first is where the application of the policy is in
the framework, so it's in the MPPF, not the local plan,
that relate to protected areas provides a strong reason
for doing so.
One of the protected areas is the national landscape.
So if we are concerned about the impact of the national landscape,
that can still provide a strong reason for refusing
the application.
So that's fine.
The other one is where the adverse impacts of allowing the
application, significantly and demonstrably,
so that's the test we have to apply,
outweigh the benefits having regard to effectively
the direction of where we are allowing sustainability.
So you've raised concerns in terms of highway safety.
So I'd have regard to paragraph 115 of the MPPF,
which refers to sustainable transport and how to prioritize.
So we're concerned that because of the lack of support
for cycling, walking, et cetera, that we're not doing that.
And that safe and suitable access
can be achieved for all users.
So I say I think we're completely sound on that.
I just wanted to make sure we're clearly,
as a decision when we're making a decision having regard to paragraph 11
the tilted balance and those relevant policies because we have to refer to the
framework in that regard and not to the local plan. Yeah and if I can just respond
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:19:48
chair absolutely I think rather bizarrely if there might be a benefit ifit was if it was more you know if a the highways issue wasn't there at all and
there was two houses going on there for two affordable houses for local families
that benefit may tilt it more but this is not this is not this is a small
residential place for the person for any questions I don't see how it could
there's a massive benefit. Any new comments before we go to the vote?
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:20:20
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:20:24
Councillor Colman. Chairman I did want to take the opportunity first to say howimpressed I think we all were with the presentation speech by the town on
behalf of the Town and Parish Council by Mr. Jane Edwards,
thought that was absolutely exemplary.
If I had to do training, I'd take that speech
and take it to the Gloucester Association
and say that's how to do it.
My second point is on the other side of the discussion.
We haven't actually mentioned one
of the points made by the agents in support of this application,
which is that actually in the last nine years,
there have been two significant crimes at that site.
And therefore having somebody,
having a permanent residence on the site
does act to deter crime to some degree.
I'm sure we are all aware of that.
Now I'm not clear that that carries much weight
in the planning balance,
but I would be very uncomfortable
that we took the decision without being aware
of that actual experience.
I don't know if somebody else mentioned it.
I wasn't listening, but I didn't think it had been.
Sorry.
I'm being responded to.
Councillor Fowle.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:21:30
Not to be outdone for the first time by the Deputy Chairman, I was going to say I thoughtthe Parish Council spoke really, really well, but also the ward member because it was difficult
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:21:41
for her because she is so committed to her patch and I thought she spoke very passionately.But there are lots of rural crimes where there are people living on site. It's a problem
Councillor David Fowles - 1:21:56
to do with the countryside. So I don't have any, I don't think that's significant really.Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:22:01
Councillor David Fowles - 1:22:01
Unfortunate, but you know I've got, we've got colleagues who are running farms who are havingthings stolen left, right and centre. Okay. One comment to I hope
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:22:12
persuade Councillor Coleman.When I visited the sites on the motorbike and then on foot there were signs saying CCTV and when I
there at the moment so in the form of CCTV so maybe that. Okay we've got that.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:22:31
So we're going now to the vote proposed by Councillor Harris, second by CouncillorFollers is to refuse the application on the grounds of highways on the impact on
the Cotswold National Landscape on the conservation areas. Is that correct?
Yes, we're voting on, we're saying, voting yes, aren't we?
Yes, you are.
We're voting to refuse.
Yeah, but so we're voting no.
No, so if you want to refuse it, you vote green.
We're voting for your vote.
We want you to vote yes, because we're voting.
It's all my vote, yeah.
Yes.
We're getting our own round for you.
It's not for your vote.
Yes.
Thank you.
So we've got five voting to refuse, one abstention and one against.
So that application is refused then.
Okay.
Thank you very much, Markham.
I will move on now to the second application.
9 24.03740.FUL Land Parcel Adj To 10 De Havilland Road Upper Rissington
This is for the erection of a self -built dwelling at land parcel adjacent to 10 de Havilland
Road, Upper Risington, Cheltenham.
The applicant is Mrs Elizabeth Maclean, Case Officer Amy Hill, the ward member is Councillor
Andrew Maclean and the recommendation is to permit subject to completion of Section 106
legal agreement to secure self -build.
And this application has come to committee because the applicant
is a close relative of a ward member.
So we'll, my name is ready.
Councillor Caul.
Good luck.
Before we proceed with this application,
I think I may have said that I was standing for the,
in the division of the first application.
I'm actually standing in the division of this application.
Oh.
Thank you to us.
I did notice that. Apologies. Okay then Amy. Thank you chair. There are no updates
to give so I shall start with the applicator. So our site is within the
built -up area in the Upper Risington which is an area within the national
landscape although it's a built -up part of it. It comprises essentially the rear
garden of number five Arrow Road and it's alongside number 10 which is in the
address. As with much of our present and there are TPOs on the site although only
Officer - 1:25:09
one currently there in its original plotting place. So we're proposing atwo -and -a -half storey dwelling house. It was initially came in with parts of it
being Cotswold stone although it is now proposed as a red brick and rendered
property and we have part of the front and garden to the rear in terms of the
elevations. So our East and South would be the red brick and the rear and North
elevation rendered.
So in terms of photographs we're looking here at the corner facing number five so
they have an extension which is what you can sort of see in the main part of it.
The hedgerow planting around is relatively recent.
I'm gonna show you an area, sorry, a street view
in a minute just so you get a bit of an idea
of the site before the hedge,
because that's the sort of predominant feature
you're going to see.
And then we're standing at the front of the site
effectively, so the site entrance would just be
to our right hand side.
And again, just slightly turn more,
so you're seeing five out of three in front of you.
This is the rear of number five.
I'm standing in the site here currently because I take a clockwise turn.
So just seeing the properties to the rear of the site and then towards number 10.
And on what basis this works.
It doesn't show quite how many turns I've had open.
I'm not sure what's following through.
Nicky, are we able to change the screen to another screen or is that going to cause a
load of issues that's not...
Sorry, we were trying to do a street view.
Which I've done previously long ago and I thought it would work.
If you leave the presentation, does it then...
escape that.
There you go.
No, don't worry.
There you go.
Sorry about this.
I thought it was going to pop up like some meatloaf.
Right.
Okay.
Oh gosh.
Just to show when it was a bit more open, so before that head start
started going around, you have number five prior to the extension and then our site here.
which sort of gives you a feature of what we could see previously with the map post there.
So that's a similar position to where the first photographs were shown.
Thank you.
Right, thank you. We've got no public speakers have we? Nope.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:27:52
Board members not here, so we'll go right on to members' questions please.Councillor Harris.
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:28:03
Thank you. I mean it's here because the applicant's close relative.Have you got any concerns other than that about it that you go, ah, do you know, or?
Officer - 1:28:15
Essentially no. There were a couple of objections that were received,but fundamentally there was a previous application on the site which whilst it differs in design,
it was pretty similar in terms of the constraints and this committee previously approved it.
But it doesn't have an awful lot of difference in terms of the impact on the street scene
or any surrounding neighbors and the like.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:28:33
The question I've got is are there any comments on the Town of Parrish Council?No comments on the Town of Parrish.
Okay.
Councillor Judd.
Thank you, Amy.
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:28:44
So I was just thinking about being self -built.Is there some sort of condition to make sure that they actually build it out within a reasonable
time because that is one of the problems with self builders in that they run out
of money and ten years later the neighbors are still living next to a
Officer - 1:29:05
building site. Unfortunately I don't believe we can ever condition toactually require people to finish their building project because if they don't
have the money we can't make them have the money to build. I would assume they'd
be trying very carefully to ensure they have the budget in advance and we can
secure the self build aspect but fundamentally we can't refuse self build
on the basis they couldn't be completed because the government requires us to provide self -build
plots. So it's not an argument I would try and want to, I wouldn't want to try and go
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:29:34
down that argument. I regret bringing that up, thank you.Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:29:37
Any more questions? Councillor Neill.Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:29:42
So does the previous decision actually carry some weight when we're making this decision?It is over three years old so they couldn't start building it yet. I say that with all
due confidence. I am relatively sure it is passed when they can start building it.
Officer - 1:30:00
I am trying my planning history session. It is permitted in 2021. It is past the threeyears where they could build it. It doesn't have as much weight as that. It is more a
it in sort of it's in a location where we support it's in a principal settlement
so our policy basis is pretty similar to what we previously approved so we'd need
pretty good reasons why if the previous one was acceptable why this one wasn't.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:30:29
Can I just ask, I've driven down to Haviland Road on numerous occasionsand it's a nightmare because of the way the cars are parked but they tend
to be parked on the opposite side of the road to where this entrance is going to
but nonetheless you're not concerned about visibility
and the turning from your report suggests that you're not
of vehicles coming out of there in reverse.
It's just a narrow, difficult road, yeah.
Officer - 1:30:57
I said there is parking and a turning sort of spaceon the site they could directly use.
Part of the sort of difficulty and benefits of being
in a housing state where there's lots
of traffic is I imagine you weren't going down there
at 30 miles an hour, you were going down pretty slowly.
So there is the benefit if you expect vehicles to come out.
Realistically, we'd like them to come out in four gear, reverse in.
But fundamentally, I wouldn't consider it to be a highway safety concern because of the nature of the road
and how people move on that kind of road.
You drive at slow speeds and you're looking for people maneuvering.
Councillor George.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:31:32
Thank you.Councillor Julia Judd - 1:31:34
I just wanted to ask about the,it says the application permitted in 2021
was similar to the current proposal.
Was that also for a five bedroom house?
Unfortunately, I didn't make note of that,
Officer - 1:31:51
but I am being nodded at by the applicants.But it was, when I said similar,
it was a two and a half story property
of similar dimensions.
So I'm not necessarily being nodded at
that it was indeed a five bed, four or five bed would be expected for that sort of size.
Councillor Fowls.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:32:12
Councillor David Fowles - 1:32:14
I mean we've not really heard from anybody, the Parish Council and so on, but there were,just mindful of the fact that there were two third party representations on page 81. You've
talked about parking, I can't believe sewer is just going to be an issue, but there's
comment there about materials not in keeping with the area. Are you comfortable with the materials?
When the application was initially submitted they put in for the two of the size to be natural Cotswold stone,
which obviously is something we usually typically support, but in that area up in Grislington it is pretty predominantly red brick with some render.
So we've discussed, myself and the applicant discussed, and they've changed that to red brick.
So red brick?
It's a regular agenda, but rather than that.
So the objection was to see when it was based on content.
That would endorse the comment about materials.
Because that would be too good materials for the site.
Okay.
Thank you.
Council Coleman.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:33:12
Thank you, Chair.Councillor David Fowles - 1:33:13
My question relates, I think, to proposed condition fiveand the discussion on page eight,
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:33:20
previously on page 89 under 1047, 48 and 49 about drainage.So we're required to have, if we look at condition five on page 91, really rather a substantial amount of work done in advance for the surface water from one house.
Is this going to be standard for single houses? Have I missed something?
And indeed the applicants are already saying they're going to use water butts as you might imagine given the reputation of the relative that sits on this council.
And they're on brush -over -line limestone, which, as I recall, drains fairly well.
I mean, is this going to be a sort of standard thing for single houses?
They've got to do a full drainage team.
I mean, I can't speak for all applications, but there's certainly
Officer - 1:34:08
comments we're getting through from the drainage team a lot more now.I think they've experienced the fact that there's a lot of concerns with drainage.
So they are probably taking a more precautionary stance than possibly have times in the past.
And we have a comment, one of the objectives about the strain to the
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:34:24
sewage system.Do we have any comment on that?
So page 81 near the top.
I would go that it hasn't been raised as an objection from our drainage team who do usually
comment on foul water if they're concerned over it.
And they should be able to connect into the system pretty well on that site.
Thank you.
More questions?
Comments then please, members.
Councillor Foulton.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:34:49
At what point could we support the officer's recommendation, Jim?Now, could I propose that we support the officer's recommendation?
I second.
Any comments from anybody else before we go to a vote?
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:35:08
No? Okay. We go to a vote.We got proposals from Councillor Farrell, seconded by Councillor Cawe, to permit this application.
Please can you now vote?
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:35:30
So that's unanimous, so that application is permitted. Thank you.Now we'll move back to the agenda.
10 Sites Inspection Briefing
Sites inspection briefing. Have we got anything lined up? No. Licensing committee members,
11 Licensing Sub-Committee
can you listen please? We have a licensing committee on the 24th of April and that's
to go ahead.
.
- Minutes , 12/03/2025 Planning and Licensing Committee, opens in new tab
- Planning & Licensing Committee - 9 April 2025 - Index of Applications, opens in new tab
- 24.03864.FUL Case Officer Report, opens in new tab
- 1 - 24.03864.FUL - Location Plan, opens in new tab
- 2 - 24.03864.FUL - Existing Ground Floor Plan, opens in new tab
- 3 - 24.03864.FUL - Existing Elevations, opens in new tab
- 4 - 24.03864.FUL - Proposed Ground Floor Plan, opens in new tab
- 5 - 24.03864.FUL - Proposed North & South Elevations, opens in new tab
- 6 - 24.03864.FUL - Proposed East & West Elevation, opens in new tab
- 7 - 24.03864.FUL - Planting Plan, opens in new tab
- 8 - 24.03864.FUL - Supporting Information, opens in new tab
- 24.03740.FUL - Case Officer Report, opens in new tab
- 1 - 24.03740.FUL- Site Location Plan, opens in new tab
- 2 - 24.03740.FUL- Proposed Block Plan, opens in new tab
- 3 - 24.03740.FUL- Proposed Ground Floor Plans, opens in new tab
- 4 - 24.03740.FUL- Proposed 1st Floor Plans, opens in new tab
- 5 - 24.03740.FUL- Proposed 2nd Floor Plans, opens in new tab
- 6 - 24.03740.FUL- Proposed Elevations, opens in new tab
- 7 - 24.03740.FUL - Proposed Elevations, opens in new tab
- 8 - 24.03740.FUL - Proposed Roof Plans, opens in new tab
- 9 - 24.03740.FUL - Proposed Sections, opens in new tab
There are currently no votes to display