Planning and Licensing Committee - Wednesday 11 June 2025, 2:00pm - Vote_events Tab - Cotswold District Council Webcasting
Agenda
Slides
Transcript
Map
Resources
Forums
Speakers
Feedback
Votes
Speaking:
Agenda item :
Start of webcast
Share this agenda point
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
Slide 1
Agenda item :
1 Apologies
Agenda item :
2 Substitute Members
Share this agenda point
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Julia Gibson, Officer
Agenda item :
3 Declarations of Interest
Share this agenda point
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Officer
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Officer
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
Agenda item :
4 Minutes
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
5 Chair's Announcements
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
6 Public questions
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
7 Member questions
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
8 24/02854/OUT - Land West of Kingshill Lane, Cirencester.
Share this agenda point
- 24.02854.OUT - Case Officer Report
- 1 - 24.02854.OUT - Site Location Plan
- 2 - 24.02854.OUT - Alternative Illustrative Masterplan
- 3 - 24.02854.OUT - Site Access Priority Junction (Appendix E)
- 4 - 24.02854.OUT - Cycle Route Details - Route 1
- 5 - 24.02854.OUT - Cycle Route Details - Route 2
- 6 - 24.02854.OUT - Cycle Link Initial Concept
- 7 - 24.02854.OUT - Parish Council Comment
Agenda item :
9 24/03111/FUL - The Saddlery, Kineton, Guiting Power.
Share this agenda point
-
Officer
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Town/Parish Council
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Town/Parish Council
-
Objector
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Applicant/Agent
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Ward Member
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Ward Member
-
Councillor Ian Watson
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Officer
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Andrew Maclean
-
Officer
-
Councillor Andrew Maclean
-
Officer
-
Harrison Bowley, Planning
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Officer
-
Officer
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Officer
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Harrison Bowley, Planning
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Ian Watson
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Officer
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Officer
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Officer
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Andrew Maclean
-
Officer
-
Councillor Andrew Maclean
-
Officer
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Ian Watson
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Ian Watson
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Harrison Bowley, Planning
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Nick Bridges
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Nick Bridges
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Nick Bridges
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Nick Bridges
-
Councillor Andrew Maclean
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Andrew Maclean
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
Agenda item :
10 25/00045/FUL - Land North East of Braecroft, Upper Oddington.
Share this agenda point
- 25.00045.FUL - Case Officer Report
- 1 - 25.00045.FUL - Existing Location & Site Plans
- 2 - 25.00045.FUL - Proposed Location & Site Plans
- 3 - 25.00045.FUL - Existing Site Sections
- 4 - 25.00045.FUL - Proposed Site Sections
- 5 - 25.00045.FUL - Proposed Floor Plan & Elevations
- 6 - 25.00045.FUL - Proposed Road Highway Views
- 7 - 25.00045.FUL - Detailed Planting Plan
-
Councillor Ian Watson
-
Officer
-
Applicant/Agent
-
Julia Gibson, Officer
-
Councillor Ian Watson
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Ian Watson
-
Councillor Andrew Maclean
-
Officer
-
Councillor Andrew Maclean
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ian Watson
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Officer
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ian Watson
-
Councillor Len Wilkins
-
Councillor Andrew Maclean
-
Councillor Ian Watson
-
Councillor Ian Watson
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
Agenda item :
11 21/01892/FUL - Outbuilding to the East of Poplars Barn, Evenlode, Moreton-In-Marsh.
Share this agenda point
- 21.01892.FUL - Case Officer Report
- 1 - 21.01892.FUL - Site Location Plan
- 2 - 21.01892.FUL - Existing Site Plan
- 3 - 21.01892.FUL - Proposed Site Plan
- 4 - 21.01892.FUL - Ground Floor Plan
- 5 - 21.01892.FUL - Front Elevation (South East)
- 6 - 21.01892.FUL - Rear Elevation (North West)
- 7 - 21.01892.FUL - Side Elevation (South West)
- 8 - 21.01892.FUL - Side Elevation (North East)
- 9 - 21.01892.FUL - Photographs
-
Harrison Bowley, Planning
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Harrison Bowley, Planning
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Angela Claridge
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Harrison Bowley, Planning
-
Harrison Bowley, Planning
-
Harrison Bowley, Planning
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Angela Claridge
-
Angela Claridge
-
Angela Claridge
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Harrison Bowley, Planning
-
Harrison Bowley, Planning
-
Harrison Bowley, Planning
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
Planning and Licensing Committee
Planning and Licensing Committee
Planning and Licensing Committee
Planning and Licensing Committee
Planning and Licensing Committee
Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:00:08
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:00:08
First mistake. Good afternoon and welcome to the meeting of Cotswold District Council's1 Apologies
1 Apologies
Planning and Licensing Committee. My name is Dyliss Neal. I am the district Councillor
for Stow -on -the -Wald in the north of the district and I am the chair of the planning committee.
Members, officers and members of the public in attendance are reminded 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 that the appropriate person appears on the screen when they are talking.
Can I just remind members, you often have multiple questions which are welcomed obviously
by the officers, but when you are called to present your questions, could you say I have
got two or three questions or whatever and then present them one at a time to the officer
who will answer them one at a time. This is a slight change from how we have run things
before but that would be very helpful. So please, could everyone who is present in the
on silent. Members of the public, you're very welcome. Please will you remain quiet during
the proceedings. You're not allowed to interact with the committee members. You may know members,
your elected member may be here, but we're not being rude. But you're not allowed to
interact with members during or after this particular meeting. So if there's an adjournment
of the meeting, please don't try to talk to any of the members.
If anyone needs to leave the meeting partway through,
please keep in mind that the proceedings are still
taking place and still being broadcast online,
and so please do so quietly.
If you need the toilets, they're immediately on your left
as you turn out of the door.
So today, our legal representative
is joining us online, which means that we're not
going to be able to use our normal electronic voting record so we will have a recorded vote
with the Democratic Services Officer. When we come to the vote we'll call out your name then
members will have to say whether you're for or against the vote. So it's slightly different
from how we normally run it. We're not expecting a fire alarm to to sound. If it does please exit
the building using the sign fire exits and make your way to the assembly point, which
is in the car park.
The way the applications will progress is that our planning officer will be invited
to present his or her report, followed by updates.
Additional pages, members will have documents
with the additional pages on their desk
in front of them, I hope.
And they're also published, will be published
on the council's website for those of you viewing at home.
So after the officer's presentation,
I'll call forward people who to speak.
So these may be from the Town and Parish Council,
objectives, supporters, and agents, you each have just three minutes to speak. So three
minutes isn't a huge amount of time, so when you're presenting your case, please would
you make sure that you put the most important things first so that you don't suddenly find
that you've run out of time. So at the end of three minutes, our Democratic Services
team will advise you that your three minutes are up. You can then finish your sentence,
but that will be it, and then that's the last interaction that you can have. So just, as
I said, try and make sure that you put the most important parts of your presentation
first. After that, the ward member will address the committee and they have five minutes to
speak. Now, moving on to our next item on the agenda. So, do we have any apologies for
absence?
Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:04:34
Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:04:34
Yes, we have apologies from Councillor Daryl Corps and Councillor Julia Judd.Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:37
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:37
Thank you very much and do we have any substitute members?Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:04:40
Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:04:40
We have Councillor Len Wilkins who is substituting for Councillor Daryl Corps.Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:46
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:46
Do we have any declarations of interest?3 Declarations of Interest
3 Declarations of Interest
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:04:57
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:04:57
Councillor David Fowles - 0:05:02
Councillor David Fowles - 0:05:02
I'm sure speaking for everybody that item, the first item on the agenda, we all knowthe supporter.
So I'm assuming that I don't have any pecuniary interest
or other interest, but it's the first time in my experience
that we've actually had a fellow Councillor acting
as a supporter.
We've had them as applicants, we've had them as ward members.
Do we need any guidance on that?
Or just the fact that we all know that Councillor Harris
is here and speaking in support of that first application.
That's the first thing.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:05:39
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:05:39
Councillor David Fowles - 0:05:40
Councillor David Fowles - 0:05:40
And secondly, because I bumped into her in the car park,the third item, the agent, Deborah Smith,
used to be a member of the planning department here.
And again, I just know her, work with her,
and I'm sure many other colleagues did.
But I don't have any interest in pecuniary otherwise.
Just wanted to acknowledge that, if I may.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:06:03
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:06:03
It's really about Jo Harris, what we should do.That's a good question.
I think, can we get taken, my understanding is that he can speak as any other member of
the public as a supporter, but perhaps we can get clarification from our legal support.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:06:19
Councillor David Fowles - 0:06:19
Yes, Chair, that's correct.He can speak as a member of the public.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:06:27
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:06:27
Councillor David Fowles - 0:06:29
Councillor David Fowles - 0:06:29
But would it be clear in the minutes that he's not just any old Joe Harris, he is theformer leader and you know very high profile member of this council that's
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:06:39
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:06:39
what I'm concerned about so that when it appeared I don't know which way theCouncillor David Fowles - 0:06:42
Councillor David Fowles - 0:06:42
application is going to go but I just think we ought to read make sure it's inCouncillor Dilys Neill - 0:06:46
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:06:46
the minutes that's all thank you very much that's a good idea and in theminutes we can refer to him as mr. Harris rather than a councillor house
perhaps thank you very much council of Brasington did you have a yeah
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:07:00
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:07:00
council file was already called I was going to mention about Deborah Smithknown to many others.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:07:04
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:07:04
Oh, that was exactly what you were going to ask.Thank you very much.
I also have a query.
I know the applicant for item three.
I don't know him very well.
I've had a cup of tea in his kitchen when he advised me about
a building matter.
And also he and his wife have generously made donations to our
village fate, but I have no pecuniary interest and probably the last time I saw him was a
couple of years ago.
Officer - 0:07:46
Officer - 0:07:46
Due to the extent of what you have said, I would generally advise that you don't takeCouncillor Dilys Neill - 0:07:54
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:07:54
part in the vote. Can I chair the proceedings or would you like me to leave?Officer - 0:07:57
Officer - 0:07:57
Chair the proceedings and leave during that item.Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:08:04
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:08:04
Okay, so Councillor Watson will then continue to chair that item. Okay, thank you.Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:08:14
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:08:14
Now we move on to the minutes.4 Minutes
4 Minutes
For those of you who were here at the last meeting, we need to take a vote on the minutes.
Does anyone have any comments on the minutes from our last meeting?
Would anyone like to propose that we accept them?
Councillor Profels and seconded?
Councillor McLean, can we vote?
Those of you who were here, if you were not here, would you say you are abstaining?
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:08:51
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:08:51
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:08:54
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:08:54
It's going to be easier if we call out, there's just a few of us so to do a recorded vote.Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:09:01
Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:09:01
Okay and Councillor Neill and Councillor Watson and Councillor Busserton andCouncillor Bridges. Abstain. Thank you.
Councillor van. Abstain.
Councillor Coleman. For.
Councillor Wilkins. Abstain.
Councillor Fowles. For.
And Councillor McLean. For.
I think that's okay. Thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:09:29
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:09:29
Thanks very much. I'm sorry that's a bit clunkybut those minutes are accepted.
Great.
I don't have any further announcements, so we move on to public questions.
Are there any public questions?
No.
Are there any member questions?
No.
Great.
So now we're going to move on to the schedule of applications.
So our first application is for residential development
for up to 280 dwellings, associated works including
infrastructure, ancillary facilities, open space,
landscaping, and pumping stations,
with construction of a new vehicular access
off Kingshill Lane, outline application,
land west of Kingshill Lane, Sire and Sester, Gloucestershire.
So the recommendation is to permit,
subject to no objection from Gloucestershire County Council
Highways and completion of a section 106 legal agreement
covering provision of affordable housing,
self -build and custom -build plots,
highways improvement works if required,
public open space management and maintenance, biodiversity net gain,
financial contribution to libraries and to North Meadow and Clattinger farm
special areas of conservation. The case officer is Martin Perksen. Perhaps you could give us your presentation and an update.
Thank you chair. Yes I do have some additional pages so I'll quickly go through those for you.
Hopefully you've seen them all already. The one that was sent out on Friday, additional pages published
6 of the 6 was a further additional objection from a local resident.
Just to clarify, that resident then wrote in a few days later withdrawing that objection
and that withdrawal is included on the additional pages published on the 10th of the 6th.
So that's included on those pages.
Pages 5 to 9 of the additional pages published on the 10th of the 6th are seven further objections
in the summary.
And I can also confirm that Gloucester County Council Highways responded yesterday advising
they have no objection to the application subject to some conditions.
So that's also attached to those additional pages update.
I'll let you read through those.
And also overnight we received one further objection from a local resident.
Similar issues to those raised on the additional pages.
In summary, the proposal will fundamentally damage the nature of the village of Preston.
There will be an additional sprawl leaving no separation between the town and the village.
There's traffic problems pulling out of Preston onto Swindon Road.
There's issues with flooding at the bottom of the hill.
There does not appear to be sufficient care taken to improve pedestrian or cycle access
as Kings Hill Road is already fast and cycling into Cirencester is already dangerous.
This is too much in the wrong place with limited infrastructure to account for it.
And also because other areas of current CDC lands are A and B, the developments have been
unfairly concentrated on areas with limited infrastructure, it is not an A or an B. We'll
alter the landscape forever.
So I'll give you a moment to look through those and then I'll go on to the presentation.
Thank you.
.
.
.
.
Have you had time, everybody, to read that? I have to make an apology. This is my first
time chairing the planning committee. First of all, I meant to make reference to my predecessor,
Ray Rushington who would never have made the mistake which I have made. He's been extremely
confident. I forgot to introduce people for those members of the public here and anyone who's
watching. So I introduced myself which was very selfish but I'd like to introduce all the other
members starting with Councillor Watson. Thank you chair. Councillor Ian Watson tech reward vice
Chair
Good afternoon, I'm Councillor David Fowles for the Colm Valley Ward
Michael van Fairfoot North
Good afternoon Andrew McLean from the Rissington's
Good afternoon Patrick Coleman a Stratton Ward in Sirencester
Nick bridges water more
Ray Brathinton, 480 Syrinsester. Thank you very much and now our officers.
Harrison Burley, I'm the head of planning services for Conservation Council.
Martin Perks, principal planning officer.
Julia Gibson, democratic services officer. Helen Cooper, senior planning
officer. Malcolm Jones from Gloucestershire highways. Angela Clarage, director of
governance. Mari Barnes, lawyer.
Thank you. Thank you very much and I apologize for this little hiccup again.
So now back to Martin for his report.
Thank you.
I'll go through the slides, hopefully put the site in
context for those who aren't familiar with it.
It's on the eastern side of the town of Sire ancestor,
outlined in red.
It's currently agricultural fields.
Sire ancestor development boundary is hashed in the dark
lines, so hopefully you can see those to give an indication of
proximity to the town's development boundary.
Although it's proximity to Sire ancestor, the site is in the parish of Preston, so just
be aware of that.
Again, closer up, look at the site, primary agricultural fields.
The village of Preston is to the southeast and extends eastwards.
The conservation area is shown in green with the listed buildings in orange.
Forty Farm, which is referred to in the report, is immediately to the south of the site, and
the churches to the east. Some photographs of the site, large field,
essentially. Looking from the public right of way in the northwest corner southeastwards,
you can see 40 Farm and the western edge of the village of Preston in the distance. Again,
looking eastwards along the public right of way, alongside the hedge row which runs through
the middle of the site. Again towards Preston. And again from the northwest corner looking
directly south, again you can see the village of Preston and 40 Farm to the left hand side
of the photograph. This is from the northeast corner of the site on the public right of
way looking southwards. And looking back towards the existing King's Hill development with
electricity pylons and the existing boundary of settlement.
Again, looking from Kings Hill Lane, looking northwestwards towards Kings Hill and the
application site, which extends across the horizon.
As part of the application, a fairly general master plan has been provided, showing potential
areas of green space, buffer zones, open space, extending along the central hedgerow.
Again, focus of development would be on the northern part of the site with it becoming
less dense as you move to the south.
The southern part of the site would be left as green fields, green space, which would
contribute to biodiversity and also provide a buffer between the village and also 40 farm
to the south.
These are particularly going to be particularly clear, but they are in your schedule.
This shows the proposed creation of a footpath linking the southern part of the site along
Kings Hill Lane to the village of Preston, partly along the western side of the lane
before crossing over to the east.
And then at the moment it hasn't been finalized but there's potentially three options going
northwest to link the site to the primary school and the secondary school.
One would extend up Kings Hill Lane before cutting into the school grounds and reaching
the school.
The second one would extend up the side of Kings Hill Lane to the school.
And then the third one, third option would be to the west of the football ground and
connecting into existing pedestrian rights of way that connect into the schools to the
north.
These are subject to conditions and would be finalized as part of a later detailed scheme.
Just that highlights them probably more clearly in terms of the potential routes of the rights
of way that would be created, one of those.
That's it at the moment.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Now, can I invite our public speakers to come forward,
the people who are speaking on this particular application?
Mrs Tomblen, Mr Harris
Thank you.
Mrs Tompkins, could you introduce yourself and then you will have three minutes to speak.
Yes, sorry.
Given that we don't have a full suite of people, wouldn't it make sense if Julie sat on the
sofa so she hasn't got her back to various people?
Just conscious of the fact that Julie from the Preston Parish Council is going to be
having to turn around.
Will that work for dental services?
I think it...
Yep, that's fine.
It just makes it easier for her.
actress.
My name is Julie Tomlin, I'm the chair of Preston Parish Council.
Preston is a small village on the outskirts of Syrinsester with its own distinct identity.
It is typically rural with a summer fate, a village hall and thriving community groups.
It is separated from Syrinsester to the west by agricultural fields.
It is on these fields that development would be situated.
This site is a prominent green wedge integral to the rural setting of both Cirencester and Preston.
The scale of the development and its upward slope mean it would be highly visible from the A419 gateway route into Cirencester, blurring the boundary between urban and rural.
There is a real danger that the village would be absorbed by urban sprawl and its rural identity would be lost.
For that reason, we respectfully request that should the application be approved, it includes
a robust green buffer between the development and Kingshill Lane on the edge of Preston
Village.
We support the recommendation by Active Travel England that the application is refused in
the absence of a contribution towards improved walking and cycling routes.
Furthermore, these routes would have greater synergy if they extended to the village with
a foot or cycle path running to the western end of Preston opposite Forty Farm.
The proposed development would generate around 10 ,000 more journeys a week, the majority
by car along Kingshill Lane which has in the main a 60mph speed limit.
It is too narrow for a safe pavement or cycleway without encroaching on existing hedges and verge.
Instead, a new footpath should run behind the football club, joining the existing path to the schools at the top of Kingshill Lane.
Pedestrians and cyclists heading from Preston towards Tesco, Aldi and beyond would have to negotiate heavier, fast -moving traffic across the dual carriageway.
We respectfully request that crossing solutions are addressed where Kingshill Lane meets the
A419 at Preston Tollbar, along with measures to prevent any rat running through Preston
Village from the development.
In conclusion, should this development be permitted, Preston Parish Council respectfully
requests that due notice should be taken of the requirements of the Preston Neighbourhood
development plan which include a robust green buffer, a complete and safe
pedestrian and cycle route extending to Preston Village, a sustainable transport
provisions at Preston toolbar and measures to prevent any rat running
through Preston Village. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Perfect timing.
Mr. Harris.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
I welcome the opportunity to come speak to you today.
I know it's a little bit strange, but it touches one of the most pressing issues that we face
in our communities, housing and access to it.
We all value the Cotswolds, its landscape, its heritage, its rural identity, but we've
also got to be honest about with ourselves.
Behind the beauty lies a growing social challenge.
Right now, 794 people in Syrinsester are on the housing waiting list.
Next door in Siddington, 262, and 15 more in Preston.
A small number, yes, but for a village the size of Preston, it feels the impact all the more.
This accounts for over half the entire district's figure.
These are not just figures, these are local people, teachers, carers, young families, young people, grandparents,
People who want to contribute to community life, yet can't find a secure, affordable place to live.
They're the people that I grew up with and who fled the area in search of more affordable housing.
This application offers part of that solution.
280 new homes with a substantial 40 % allocated as affordable housing.
That's 112 affordable homes.
That includes options for social rent, shared ownership and first homes, delivered right where need is greatest.
Now, of course, I understand the concerns about the development
outside the current boundary.
I've lived on the Kingshill Meadow Estate,
and I've also lived in Preston.
I know both communities very well.
I also know the field very well.
I'm regularly walking through it with the dog.
I also know how strongly people feel about unplanned piecemeal
development, and I appreciate the concerns that were just
raised by the parish council.
But this isn't speculative, and it's not a scattergun growth.
The site lies next to the Sire and Sister boundary.
It's been identified as suitable for development,
and it comes with clear commitments. Biodiversity, better walking and cycling links and sensitive
layout that respects its surroundings. It's not perfect but we can't let the perfect be the enemy
of the good and we must remember the national context. Since changes to planning policy last
December announced by the Government, the Council can no longer demonstrate a five -year housing land
supply. I note the Town Council repeats its earlier objection. It does so without acknowledging the
fundamental change that the 24 updates national planning policy. As a result of that change,
Cotsworth District Council can now only demonstrate 1 .8 years of housing supply, not five.
That transforms the planning context entirely.
Policy DS4 is no longer up to date, and under the MPPS presumption in favour of sustainable
development, sites like this must be considered not against outdated policy boundaries, but
against urgent local need, including the 790 households currently on scientists' own waiting
list.
This means we have not just an opportunity, but I would say a responsibility to respond
with practical, well -located development like this.
Now, let's not pretend the choice is between building
and not building.
The real choice is between planned development,
where we shape outcomes, or unplanned pressure later
when we've missed the chance to deliver what's needed.
So I ask you today, if we can't approve a well -planned,
well -located scheme like this, one that directly addresses
need, then where on earth do we begin?
Please support it.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Evermy. Thank you chair. I'm Mike Evermy. I'm the ward Councillor for
Siddington and Cerny Rural which includes the whole of the Preston Parish
and thank you for the comments made by Julie Tomlin chair and listening to the
made by Joe Harris. I would like to start by acknowledging the concerns of the
objectors and the parish council. There is clearly a loss of farmland, the rural
buffer as Julie Tomlin described, you know, is important for Preston as a
settlement just outside of Sire and Sester and as we saw on the screen, you
a historic area in the centre of Preston that needs to be preserved. Also I would
want to acknowledge the impact on 40 Farm. There is some development going on
there as well but it is a listed building and it will sit now if this is
granted in the foreground of a large housing development and it is itself a
listed building. And I think also it's important to acknowledge the loss that
this will be of the views of Sire and Sester,
as was outlined, I think, by our heritage officer
in the previous refusal of this,
a very, very similar, almost identical application
that was refused in 2023.
And the views as you come into Sire and Sester,
this is a very, very prominent location,
I think as our officer explained to us.
Clearly this site is not in our local plan.
And as I said, it was refused
just two years ago.
But as Joe Harris has told us, there is a material change.
The National Planning Policy framework was updated
by the government in December,
and there is a new housing target
that has been allocated to the Cotswold District.
It's 1 ,036 houses a year.
It's a very, very high number,
a number that I don't believe this council
will ever be able to achieve,
given that 80 % is in the area of outstanding natural beauty in the
Cotswold national landscape. But as Joe has outlined what that means is that
previously we had a housing supply which we believe would last 7 .4 years based on
our calculation it's now 1 .8 to 1 .9. So what that means is that we have
una - we are unable to use our local plan and our housing supply to refuse this
application in the same way that that was done two years ago under delegated
powers. So it's now down to this committee to decide on this application.
And Joe has outlined there are benefits 112 affordable homes 50 % of the 50 sorry
socially rented and that is part of the tilted balance which I'm sure members
will have read in their papers from the officer about whether this application
should be permitted.
But that doesn't mean it should, any application
should be permitted.
And I would ask the committee to consider carefully when looking
at this application where those previous grounds for refusal
are still strong enough to refuse this one.
That's really the job, the task that is in front of you.
If you do decide that you think that it, the tilted balance
favours permitting this application, I would ask you,
and I welcome particularly the proposal for the foot and cycle path to the rear
of the football club area up back up to the schools. That's a long -held aspiration from
the parish council to have a safe route to school for children from Preston which will also be
which will be delivered if that route is is used. I don't think it will be delivered if the route
along the road is used because it wouldn't be safe to cycle along there right next to the next
to the road. It's a 60 mile an hour road speed limit and therefore I would urge
if this post permitted that that be maintained along the rear. I think the
other major concern I've got is about the access to the facilities. There's no
shop on Kings Hill Meadow, the nearest shops are Aldi and Tesco over the other
side of the road and as Councillor Tomlin has outlined the Preston toll bar
is in desperate need of upgrading to be safe to cross.
And we will be putting 280 homes.
The nearest place for them to cross is the Preston Toll Bar,
not to go back up the hill all the way through Kings Hill
Meadow and over the bridge.
So I note in the highway's response about sustainable
in terms of a travel plan, but I would urge the committee
to look into that very carefully and look at how,
if this development does go ahead,
there is a safe route to cross at the Preston Toll Bar
for the residents in this estate and the residents of Preston. Thank you.
Thank you very much. If you'd like to go back to your seats that would be great.
We haven't had a slight inspection briefing so now we'll go on to members questions.
Councillor? Just a brief point of sort of order chair. There is a reference, I
apologize for not spotting this early, on page 22 the views of Sciences to Town
Council are listed under paragraph 8 .3 and that'll be the planning committee of
that town council. I am and have been for some years a member of that planning
committee almost certainly I was present when the town council took that decision
and I need to take the opportunity to confirm two things first of all at the
start of that meeting it was minuted and the minutes will show that I advised
that the view I took at the town council may not be the view I take should it
come before this committee which it has and similarly I would confirm that I
I will be taking a fresh view and not be in any way bound by the views of the
San Francisco town council today. I can't remember this case having come up this
sort of thing having come up before but at least I spotted it too just in time.
Thank you. Thank you very much. I'll ask our legal officers you're happy for
Councillor Coleman to continue. I think from what Councillor Coleman has said in
respect to his taking a fresh view then he can stay and hear the
application. Thank you very much. Councillor Fells. Thanks Chairman.
Well the first question I want to ask is at what point can we as members request
a site visit? The reason I say that is that there are, I mean I've
lived to the east of Sire ancestor and have done for 30 years and I know how complicated
it is and difficult it is to get into Sire ancestor in the morning.
And I'm also very aware of that buffer that we're talking about that currently exists
and looking at plans is one thing but actually seeing it on the ground, seeing how far this
development extends and most particularly to have a proper look at what's going on with
the traffic as it joins the A417 etc. I for one would be very keen, such an important
development impacting on Sire ancestor given its current status etc with the local plan.
When can I request that? Do I request it later on or now?
So members you can put forward a proposal during discussion that you wish to defer for
an S -I...
I would like to formally propose that we defer it.
Members need to be aware, obviously at that point,
we would be at risk of them appealing non -determination.
It's not to say they would or wouldn't,
but the risk is then there,
they could appeal non -determination,
it doesn't end up back at committee.
Well, that notwithstanding,
Yeah, no, absolutely, but it's just something to bear in mind.
the strength of feeling expressed by the parish council
and even the ward member, that we get this right,
if it's gonna go ahead, seems to me that, you know,
we go out to sites for one or two houses, here's 280.
I personally think that we should be arranging a cycle sooner rather than later.
I don't know whether I have any support for that, but that's what I'd like to propose.
Would that not come under the comments section?
Exactly. We'll have to go through the questions and then when we get to comments and discussion.
Okay, well then can I now ask my question?
Yes.
The ward member and the planning consultant, looking at it from a slightly different perspective,
comment on the local plan review process.
We've just had a presentation with the so -called tilted balance that we were discussing earlier,
and here we are presented with this.
I'd like some guidance from you, Harry, or indeed Martin, in terms of this application being regarded as premature,
bearing in mind what's happening with the planning review process. And secondly, we
also had a conversation outside this meeting about neighbourhood development plans, all
right, and the weight that they should be afforded. And it's pretty clear from, I haven't
read the neighbourhood development plan for Preston, but I can almost guess at what the
direction travel is. And I also want to know what the weight is there. So two questions,
local plan and the neighbourhood development plan for Preston.
As it stands at the moment, we have to have regard to paragraph 11 of the MPPF.
And that advises that local plan policies, the DS policies in the local plan are currently out of date.
So therefore we have to determine it as set out in the report on the grounds of what's
referred to as the tilted balance, where you weigh the impacts against the benefits and
such like.
It's not premature.
The local plan is still going to be a long way off.
It's not at the point where it's about to go to examination or anything.
So we're still a way off from that.
So it's not premature to determine this.
We have to look at it on a case -by -case basis as it stands at the current moment in time
based on paragraph 11 of the MPPF.
In terms of the neighbourhood plan, yes, the neighbourhood plan is part of the development
plan for the district and carries the same weight as the local plan.
There are no specific policies in the neighbourhood plan that say you can't build on this site.
As I've set out in the report, and I'll quote the section in relation to this site, because
it's identified in the neighbourhood plan, it just says for any proposed developments
to be considered appropriate in this sub area it would need to retain the open agricultural
character of the landscape, ensure the identity of the village of Preston to be retained as
a separate settlement and with its own countryside setting, maintain the visual amenity of public
rights of way and ensure that the green wedge approach to Syrens Hester is retained. It
would be appropriate if the existing country park along the Ermine Way is extended to the
So that's kind of the neighbourhood plan's comments on this particular area of land within their parish.
So it's not saying no to development. It's just wanting certain things put in place to ensure those kinds of
characteristics are retained. And at the moment we're looking at an outline application, which just establishes the principle of development.
As you will see, one of the conditions in the application is to, for the applicant to provide a detailed
strategic master plan for the site before they go to reserve matters details.
So that would have said again establish certain parameters in terms of landscape
buffers and green space around the site and between built development and the
village of Preston and Forty Farm. So we think there's enough mechanisms in place
going forward to ensure that those type of views set out in the neighbourhood plan
are fully taken into account prior to any more detailed schemes coming forward
for this particular application.
But to go back to your initial point, yes, at the moment,
we have to look at applications on a case -by -case basis,
weighing the benefits against the impacts.
Martin, that's a brilliant answer to both my questions.
Thank you.
But your comment about the neighborhood development plan,
that's precisely why I think we should go on a site visit.
Next, we have Councillor McLean.
Thank you.
I've got three questions.
The first is, yep, yep.
The first is very simple.
I don't understand what the Preston toll bar is because I
come from the North Cotswolds and I don't understand local
terms.
I can guess what it is, but I'd like to know.
Get some pictures off street view.
It's basically a junction in simple forms.
To the south, I'll go back.
It's the junction from Preston with the main road.
Yeah, it's the one that was a junction.
I think I'll go back quite a long way.
As you see Preston there and to the south of the site where the yellow road meets the red road, that's kind of the Preston toll bar.
It's been changed recently to be, as you come out of that road you have to turn left.
I'll go to the photographs of it, that's kind of it.
So this is what was mentioned.
So at the moment there's an existing, this is looking eastwards, sorry.
There's an existing public pavement that goes to a bus stop lay by which you can see on
the top picture and then you cut across the road through a dedicated footpath at the moment.
You can see in the bottom right.
So there is already a dedicated crossing there across that road and I think that's what Councillor
Evermy was talking about and the parish council about this being upgraded and improved as
part of their desires.
I'll let Malcolm comment on that in terms of access through.
I would suggest also in terms of some of the comments made by the parish, there is community
infrastructure levy funding.
As the parish council have a neighbourhood plan, they can potentially get 20 % of the
receipts from community infrastructure levy, which they can spend on projects in their
parish.
So they will get something from this as well.
But I don't know if Malcolm may want to comment on that.
Can I, before you go, my second question is quite similar.
So just, I also picked up that the idea for cycling infrastructure and such like along
the road is not that appropriate.
Just looking at the thing, it just seems to me that the key thing is to connect to the
center of town with all those things to stop people doing unnecessary vehicle movements.
Surely there are good options for linking this new estate
with much better infrastructure for people walking or cycling,
not only to Aldi and Tesco's, but into town as well.
And should that not be a...
Could that not be a priority in developing this site?
Well, those already sort of exist, because if at the moment,
on that aerial photograph, the western edge where the hedgerow
goes through the site, connects into the pedestrian footpaths that go into the King's Hill development
and then down you can walk and cycle all the way down to the road bridge over the dual
carriageway at the Tesco Aldi roundabout. Or you can walk into town. So it is possible
to walk into town using existing footpaths and cycleways. At the moment there's no connection
like a public footpath pavement from the southern part of the site to the village of Preston.
That's what would come in as part of this development.
So that would allow people from Preston to be able to walk up on
a pavement into the development site and up through the
development into King's Hill if they so wish.
But the plan itself only showed cycling along the road.
The ones inside the development said only foot paths.
Maybe that's just an oversight because it's very initial stages.
Yeah, I mean within the development itself that's
something that we'd look at at the later stage once Reserve
Matters comes in in terms of connectivity, pedestrians and
and cycle routes through the development and ensuring that it's suitable for and attractive
for people to use modes of transport other than the motorcar.
Going north, yes, I agree that having a pavement along Kings Hill Lane wouldn't be ideal.
We prefer something that went inside the fields around the back of the rugby ground.
But that's still open to discussion and we need to discuss that with the applicant going
forward in terms of which it's a proposed route and sort of land ownership issues as
well.
But again, that would be ideally pedestrian and cycle way.
Thank you.
Is that the end of your questions?
I have one more.
It's not that road.
Okay, sorry.
Yeah, in terms of the crossing on the main road,
I don't know what else we can do practically.
I don't think you could put a pedestrian control signal
crossing there.
There's enough problems on that link in terms of delays anyway.
But it's certainly something we can have a look at, as Martin pointed out, there's a lot of work to be done in negotiating all these bits and pieces.
So it's something we can have a look at and see if there is a sensible solution.
In terms of the cycleways and the connections, as Martin said, there's a connection into the estate to the west.
And there's decent links through in that.
And from a priority point of view, it was considered that connections up to the primary and secondary school were the most important ones at this stage, because those are the most vulnerable users.
Those are the ones where you're going to get, hopefully, the biggest impact, most use on those routes.
And so we deliver those routes where they are, which side of the hedge.
Again, there's preferences.
It's good and bad on both of them.
from a pure highways point of view, we would probably prefer it running alongside the
carriageway with a separation. That gives us an issue with the hedge. Put it behind
the hedge, we would have an issue with do you light it? Is it secure when it's
there's no nobody passing it? So there's a lot of work to be done around how we
deliver it but it's going to be delivered.
And your last question, thanks.
My final question is about the pylons.
What's the advice about how close houses should be built to high -voltage power lines?
Because I certainly wouldn't want to live underneath one, but what is the guidance about
how close they can go to those and what do they propose?
Thank you.
There isn't a minimum distance.
I think the Transco or National Greeting recommends sort of 50 -meter separation distance just
for maintenance purposes and stuff.
Clearly, the government don't see it as an issue because they recently issued guidance
that people will get refunds on their electricity bills if they live and house near electricity
lines.
So, no, there isn't an issue there.
Clearly, it's more than a desire of do people want to live near them.
And that has some implications, I guess, for affordable housing.
but generally no, there's no guide in terms of how close you can live next door to a pylon.
Does that, have you finished your questions? Thank you. Councillor Coleman.
Well Chair, the first thing's only just occurred to me which is looking at the photograph and the
different shading of the fields reminds me that being somewhere near Corinium, that there
could be some archaeology there. Is there any requirement, I apologise if it's covered
in this rather long report, is there any requirement to check for Roman remains?
I think I covered that in the small print at the end. No, they're okay. They've done
the evaluations. GCC Archaeology have just requested a condition, the standard condition
that you want to take further works and record it.
So thank you very much.
Second point is the layout of the estate, which is only illustrative at the moment,
but the developers are going for the green space on the edge
or to the southern edge rather than within the development.
And I wondered if that is necessarily the best option
and why that is necessarily better than having greens.
For instance, a sort of central green space
of the sort you can see is on the approach to Fairford
on the left where what was a rather
audible looking development looks rather nice now
with allotments in the middle of the estate.
That's an example.
Yes, that's something we have raised in the latest scheme
to show more of a green buffer alongside the hedgerow.
The original details that did come in
showed housing right up against the central hedge row. And we advised we wanted greenery
within the centre of the development to make it more like it wasn't just turning its back
on the landscape and being very urban and hard in the site itself. So yes, we've been
looking for green infrastructure, green space in the centre of the development. The reason
for the south as set out before is to try and provide a buffer between the village and
the listed building, but also that's the lower part of the site and you need that for the
drainage anyway, like the attenuation infiltration basins. So that's a lot of practical and landscape
heritage reasons for not going into that section of the site. And there's also quite defensible
boundary where the housing is currently shown extending to. You've got a quite established
hedgerow which can, you know, if you go beyond that then it kind of becomes less of a defensible
boundary in terms of development. So yeah, that's the reasoning behind that.
One last one. The sustainable transport plan, we've heard some discussion about cycling.
It's actually a very complicated cycle ride from there into the centre of town,
involving negotiating the bus gate in the beaches and then the bottom of the beaches road,
which is not friendly to cycles. It's quite a long way. It's getting well beyond a mile.
But to me, a sustainable transport plan for what will otherwise be a car dependent development
has got to involve buses and this is tricky because although you've got a lot
of pedestrian and potential cycle flow north to the north and coming back in
the afternoon to the schools and indeed I suppose to the football club it's very
hard to imagine that anybody's going to choose to use a bus to go into the
centre of town when as far as I know there's no bus along Kingsville Lane
that goes into the centre of town and it's quite difficult to see how you
could route one, even the off -peak round the town bus,
which only operates off -peak and only once an hour,
but it's still very valuable for people
who prefer not to drive due to age or disability.
It's hard to see how we could add this part of town
to its route to get it round the town
in a figure of eight in an hour.
Is there any guidance on what a minimum bus contribution
is to a sustainable transport plan?
Is it two buses a week like at Winson or is it a little bit more?
No, I don't think we do have anything.
I'm normally guided by GCI highways and they ask for a contribution to public transport,
but that's not been the case in this instance.
I mean, the footpath to the south provides a better connectivity to the bus stop on the
Muswindon Road and there is bus stop in the centre of where that initial shopping area
was meant to be in the King's Hill development about 200 yards to the west.
So there are both within walking distance. Other than that, no, it's not
something we can ask for, I don't believe.
Yeah, it was something that will be picked up when the travel plan is
produced, which is something we've conditioned that's got to be done. But as
Mike said, I'm not sure there's an enormous amount of improvement that can
be done considering what else they are providing and we come up against the
viability argument again.
Thank you. Councillor Bridges. My concerns are about flooding. This is in flood zone
one but the runoff goes into flood zones two and three. Over the last year we've
I think it's two examples of the main road flooding due to the river surcharging.
We also have plenty of examples of sewers surcharging because too much water is getting into them.
And this can only make things worse.
I was going to read something from the Science to Civic Society.
Premature approval of some of the outline details without full knowledge of the implications
would make it impossible to change them later.
Increased flood risk to the King's Meadow area arising from
more runoff flowing into the River Turin must be a concern.
So that's point one.
And then I'll also draw attention to...
Are you making a point, sir?
Are you asking a question?
I'm making a point, but I'm coming on to a question
that comes out of this.
Okay.
And then the question comes out of 10 .86, where you say all
foul water network upgrades required to accommodate the additional flows from the development
have been completed. That's a condition. But I don't understand how the condition can be
implemented because I've been along to many of Jeffrey Clifton Brown's flood meetings
here where Thames Water are here and they say our plans for mitigating this are to line
the sewers. In one year they managed to line 600 metres of sewers, which is very good.
So, the following year, nothing.
So we can't rely on Thames Water to actually line the sewers and to do the mitigation works
that are required.
What's your question?
Do you need a question?
So how will we ensure that Thames Water follow Condition 1?
Very good.
Well, the condition is recommended by Thames Water.
It's their condition.
So ultimately the details would be submitted and then we'd refer those details to Thames
Water and it would set out whether they were acceptable or not and reasonable.
So that's a fairly standard response from Thames Water to development.
They put the precautionary condition in, setting out the number of dwellings that can be occupied
prior to the upgrades being undertaken.
As a statutory undertaker, Thames Water have to connect development to their system.
It's their duty under the legislation, the Water Industries Act.
So they can't refuse to accept development to the system.
They just have to ensure the mechanism is in place to ensure that when it is connected,
the infrastructure is sufficient to cater for the proposed development.
And the applicant enters into separate legal agreements with Thames Water
to put forward those mechanisms.
So that condition is fairly standard for most developments.
and they are the statutory provider and they have the best knowledge of their system and how it operates in existing capacities.
So the conditions put forward by them are based on the current understanding of their systems.
So we are therefore reliant on their advice as a statutory consul to you.
In terms of the surface water matter, the lead local flood authority at Gloucester County Council,
they're the statutory body for looking at surface water and they've looked at all the drainage reports
that have been submitted and are satisfied that it's acceptable.
Subject again to conditions relating to onsite infiltration basins and sustainable drainage
which will again ensure that the water flow from development shouldn't exceed existing
green flow rates or green field rates, sorry, and also take into account climate change
as well.
So it should result in an improvement in terms of the amount of water that's leaving the
site if those measures are put in place. Thank you.
Thank you. Is that all your questions?
Councillor Breslington. Thank you, Chair. I have several questions,
unfortunately. Paragraph 615, active travel England, says
the application should be refused because it doesn't comply with paragraphs 109, 115,
5, 1 .1 .7, 1 .1 .8 of a national planning policy framework.
Do you agree with that?
No, for the reasons set out in the report.
I mean, the difficulty we have is
we need to deliver housing in this district.
Where else in Sirencester, or where in Sirencester
are you going to find a site that meets
the things that they're requesting?
You've either got landscape constraints, flood constraints,
sites that already got permission for development, we are extremely limited in terms of where
new development can go. The site is walkable or accessible by cycle to many parts of the
town. With the additional footpaths, cycleways being put into the schools as well, that will
address many issues in terms of vehicle movements, especially peak periods in the morning when
a lot of traffic is school -related. So I think as far as Syrister goes, we think this is
sustainable as you're going to get in terms of its location and accessibility.
Otherwise I struggle to see where we're going to put new development, not only in
Syrinsester but in any of the other towns in the district really. I think we're
trying to put as many mechanisms in place as we can to ensure that it is
more friendly to cyclists and pedestrians and it is not just going to
be solely reliant on cardboard. At the same time we have to balance that
against the need for new housing.
Thank you.
Paragraph 1042 and 1043 refer to the landscape officer's comments.
We've got details of what the landscape officer said
for the original application, but I
can't see anything specifically where the landscape officer is
referring to this application.
We haven't got a landscape officer at the moment.
So that landscape officer's left,
and the scheme is the same as the one previously now
is the same as the previous one.
So that's why nothing materially has changed in terms of the landscape,
and that's why we've just referred to those comments,
because they're still valid to this particular application.
And also my assessment of it, just from experience of dealing with these things as well,
I generally deal with landscape matters quite a lot in terms of the stuff I deal with.
So my view is it's generally consistent with what the landscape officer was saying at that time.
Yes, we think there is a harm potentially to the landscape,
but in this instance now we need to provide the houses that is outweighed
by the need to deliver the houses especially the affordable housing as
well so circumstances have changed in terms of the planning balance since the
previous consideration of this up the previous application. Thank you. Moving on
to highways paragraph 1077 says that at junction 7 capacity is already exceeded.
Are there any plans to do any highways improvements at Junction 7?
This is paragraph 1077 on page 54.
Junction 7 is the one, the toll bar one we were talking about earlier.
I think part of the problem with that was because of increased vegetation obscuring
views to the west.
It appears that some of that vegetation is private but grows onto the highway so it potentially
can be cut back and therefore you can increase visibility and increase vehicle movements.
But again, I don't know if Malcolm has anything further to say.
The difficulty we have with these sort of things is that when a junction is already
over capacity, the impact of the development, it doesn't meet the severe requirement because
the impact is adding a little bit onto the back of a queue.
And that's the government advice in MPPF is unless the development itself results in a
severe impact on the highway because then we can't do anything about it.
We, as the highway authority, if we can find a budget somewhere that we can do something,
we will, but we can't hang it on the back of development because their impact doesn't
hit the severe definition.
I mean, I would stress that that tailback is at one short period in the morning period.
It's not all day long.
If it was all day long, constantly tailbacks, then I think that's more problematic.
But for one short period at five, 10 minutes in a peak period, I think it's just an initial.
The final question relates to page 79, the highways one again.
Yeah, near the bottom right hand corner where it says notes.
Yes, it says the proposed design is based on a 50 mile an hour design speed. Now we're told it's a 60 mile an hour
speed limit on there. So is that design still valid?
The design speed isn't necessarily the speed limit, it's the speed that vehicles were going, or you can justify going one step below in terms of the design speed.
So yes it's valid, but again it's still got to go through the whole technical approval process, so we'll go back through the whole detail when it's finalised.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Watson.
Thank you, Chair. Martin, I know that this is an outline planning application at the
moment. It doesn't have the detail in there with the final development. Would this committee
get the chance to see that later when it becomes a complete application?
Yes, the process would be if this is permitted, it would be in this form with these conditions
What would then happen normally is an application for reserve matters would come in, which would
deal with matters like scale, design, layout.
And given it's a major development, then that would normally come back to planning committee
at that stage.
So you would be able to look at all the house designs, the landscaping, layout, et cetera,
at that stage.
Would we still be able to impose further conditions at that stage?
You can impose conditions relating to those matters, but not kind of in principle overarching
conditions.
Okay, thank you.
Councillor Fowles, have you got another question? I've got two if I may, Chairman.
We spoke prior to this meeting about the slow development that's taking place at the Steddings and we've got
permission for 2 ,350 houses here, so
What's the relationship, just to get my head around it,
between the lists that the supporter was talking about in
terms of people waiting for housing and the current planned
development at the Steadings, which has a number of affordable
units on it, may not be as many as we would have liked,
but quite interested in that.
There seems to be a lot of pressure about this particular
site, yet we have consent for over 2 ,000 houses just
further round to the west of Syr ancestor and south west, sorry.
And the second question is related to the comment made by the parish council and others
about the, not the infrastructure, but schools, doctors' surgeries, et cetera.
I don't know what 280 houses converts to in terms of numbers of people and children, et
But have we had dialogue with the schools, et cetera, or has the applicant to make sure
that we've got the necessary support structure for people moving into the town?
I'll do the second question first.
We consult Gloucester County Council Education as part of the application.
So they've responded and haven't requested any financial contributions to primary or
secondary schools.
They consider they both have sufficient capacity to cater for future child projection numbers.
So in that respect, the County Council are satisfied that the schools have capacity to cater for this development.
In regard to the first question...
The second question, is that possible by the doctors?
No, the doctors, we've not had any comments or responses from the NHS about this, which isn't unusual.
They don't normally comment.
We don't... it's very rare that we...
We don't normally get any comments from the NHS unless they got directly involved with
the proposal, so that's not uncommon.
Got to the first point.
Yes, affordable housing, as I said in the local plan when it came in in 2018, the local
plan policies at the moment for affordable housing cater for about 100 affordable, or
potentially deliver 100 affordable units per year.
The need identified at the time I think was about 150 or so.
So even the local plan policies at the moment covering affordable housing are still delivering
far below what the identified need was even back in 2018.
So it's a continuing issue and as I've said in the report, the differential between median
house prices and median wages in this district is about 16 times.
So it's likely to become increasingly more problematic as we go forward.
So notwithstanding what may come forward at Chesterton, it's important that we make the
most when we can of any site that comes forward to get the maximum out of it.
Because otherwise we will, the situation will gradually get worse as we go forward.
Councillor Wilkins.
Thank you, Chair.
One of my questions was similar to Councillor Fales.
Thank you very much.
If there's no further questions, we'll move on to comments
Councillor Colman
Chair
That's what we are. I know you don't mind
Chair I want to take the opportunity to express my appreciation of the
representative from Preston town councils very measured balanced and well -informed assessment of this application and
also to recognize the
more anticipated professionalism of the two councillors who spoke. Not often we
get that. And taking note of the points made by Councillor Fowles earlier, I on
balance would support a site visit for this. This is I think the biggest
application we've had in terms of number of houses for five years. I think the
last one was a Morton in Marsh job. One of the Morton in Marsh design big
applications back in Rachel Cox Coons time as the local Councillor, a member of
brilliant contribution. That makes it a rarity and the size and the issues that
we've identified today I think on balance make a site visit worthwhile.
I cannot imagine a professional developer with this much at stake taking us for
non -determination because we've gone for a site visit. If that's ever happened
anywhere in the country I'd be interested to know. Thank you.
I think we'd need to take a vote on that but do you want to say anything again
about the site inspection potential site inspection briefing? No only obviously
members it's for members to decide how they wish to vote on the application
obviously there is the benefit of going to the site but I think as I say I just
bear in mind there is that risk of a BPD non -semination to put you know as I
said you're you're aware of that so as long as that's taken into consideration.
For clarity an all member visit chair.
Councillor Fowls.
I think we should take a vote on that immediately then should we?
Normally we don't.
Okay.
Unless anyone wants to shout at me from the edges.
Okay.
So we'll continue with comments and then we'll vote on the site of inspection briefing later.
Councillor Fales.
Well, Councillor Coleman sort of referred to, I thought it was kind of a Freudian slip, he referred to Preston Town Council and that seemed to me to be potentially the shape of something to come because that's the fear that I would have.
And that's why I think it's so important to go on site with it.
I would also like to thank Martin because I asked him some pretty probing questions.
Not only did he give me an answer, he gave me one of his most thorough answers ever.
So thank you very much for that.
I just feel really strongly that since this is comments, that this is premature.
I recognise the change in policy.
I recognise the tilted balance.
But if this is going to happen, we've got to make absolutely certain that it's absolutely
right.
I also recognise the knowledge that Nick Bridges brings to developments in siren testing couldn't
have come on at a better time, because I know about the flooding at that end, Zone 1.
It is actually quite scary.
I think we've got to get this so right, which is why I hope we're going to get support for
it for a site visit.
but I feel strongly that with the changes in policy,
with the changes in central government,
sitting in Westminster, they don't know Sire and Cestor,
and we've got to get this right.
And what's worrying me is that it's sort of,
it's slipping through because we've got 1 .8 years land supply,
got things backing up, we've got changes in our policy,
and in a previous iteration we would never have even considered
this application, or at least I wouldn't,
I would be voting strongly against it.
So if we're not going to go on a site visit,
I will be voting against it.
Okay.
Thank you.
Councillor McLean.
I have to say thank you very much everyone for the presentation.
I think for this kind of presentation with pretty much green fields on the edge of an urban area,
I'm not really sure what a site visit would do to teach me other than what I've been presented with already.
So I, by contrary, I'm not in favour of site visit and I'd like to propose that we go with the offer of recommendation, if anyone would care to second that. Thank you.
Councillor Watson?
I would second that motion.
Any other comments?
So now I guess we vote about the site inspection briefing first of all.
I'll take that order out.
Okay. So the proposal is for a site inspection briefing,
in which case the decision would be deferred.
A small member site inspection.
Is it working now?
Okay. We're trying the electronic voting system.
Oh, it does seem to have come up now.
So the vote is for a site inspection briefing before we make a decision, in which case the
decision would be deferred until the next meeting.
Chris the man first.
If you were in favor of the British,
you can just laugh at us, okay?
Why is it not working?
We're not going to have one.
Oh, it's a full week.
No, no.
It's because of the chair.
Yeah, but look which way the chair votes.
Thank you.
Oh, I know. Somebody was missing.
It's Ian Watson. Oh, Ian Watson.
Yeah, my machine was broken.
Excuse me.
Four fives.
So the vote is against the site inspection briefing.
So we now proceed to the vote on the motion.
So at the moment we have in front of us a proposal to accept the officer's recommendation.
Who's the proposal?
Sorry?
Councillor McLean has proposed.
that we accept the ancestry.
Can Martin just make a note of that condition, sorry.
Yeah.
Just before we go to the vote.
Mr. Pechs would like to make a note of that condition.
Yeah, sorry to just interrupt.
I was just going to clarify, at the moment we've got conditions.
The process regarding the Section 106 may take a while,
and some things like changing some conditions may need tweaking.
So I just wanted to just clarify as part of the recommendation
that we also have delegated authority just to tweak some of the planning
conditions if necessary as a result of ongoing negotiations. If there's issues
with the section 106 or matters like that then clearly we'll bring the
application back to committee for you to consider but at the moment it's just to
give a bit of flexibility for officers going forward in terms of conditions if
we need to tweak them or whatever.
Councillor Brasington did you want to make a comment?
Just briefly on the conditions. Condition 18 refers to having a construction
environmental management plan for diversity. I think we need one on relation to noise and
dust control, considering the close proximity of existing properties.
Yeah, we could look at doing a construction management plan.
I don't know what the process is since we have electronic voting, but I'd like to propose
that we have a recorded vote.
No, no, I want to, I'd like it, okay, what I'm asking is will it be specified in the
minutes who voted for and who voted against, please?
Yes, if you look in our current minutes, it's already done.
I know it's recorded, but I didn't know whether we specified it in the minutes.
It's already done, it's already done.
So it will be named, okay, thank you.
Okay, no more chattering amongst yourselves, please.
So can we just check that we know what we are voting for?
Yes, this will be voted to go with the officer's recommendation to permit the application but
we delegated authority to tweak the planning conditions and with Councillor Braston's
So, in addition to, so I'm just going to read out what it says as our recommendation in
addition to what Harrison has just suggested.
So, permit subject to no objection from Gloucestershire County Council Highways, which we have, completion
of a section 106 legal agreement, which we've discussed with Mr. Pex, covering provision
of affordable housing, self -built custom -built plots, highway improvement works if required,
public open space management and maintenance, biodiversity, net gain,
financial contribution to libraries and North Meadow and Clattinger Farm special
areas of conservation. Did you want to give the wording about the noise and
dust control? Yeah with a construction management plan, a condition requiring
the submission of this construction management plan to be agreed. And the
delegation to... Yeah, a delegation to tweak, sort of make minor amendments to
conditions which will be required as part of the Section 106 negotiations.
As we say, anything more substantial would be referred back to committee.
Thank you very much.
In that case, we'll proceed to the vote.
I hope you all know what you're voting for.
Thanks.
that in those shorts so I thank
Sorry, that was six applications for and six votes for three against so that application
is committed. Sorry, thanks.
We have a request for a comfort break, so we will take a comfort break and return here just before half past.
9 24/03111/FUL - The Saddlery, Kineton, Guiting Power.
9 24/03111/FUL - The Saddlery, Kineton, Guiting Power.
Are we going on to our next agenda item, agenda item 9, which is a full application for the
removal of stables, erection of a dwelling with associated works including parking, landscaping
and a new access at the Sudbury -Kainton Guiding Power, Gloucestershire.
The recommendation is to permit.
The case officer is Helen Cooper.
And I would like to ask her to give her report.
Thank you, Helen.
Officer - 1:20:32
Officer - 1:20:32
Helen Cooper Thank you, Chair.Okay, so this application has been called to Planning
Committee at the request of Councillor Len Wilkins on
grounds for the principle of development and also in
respect to design and impact upon the landscape and
heritage assets and the potential impact
upon biodiversity.
And first of all, I would just like to highlight a couple of
points in the report which need to be amended.
So there's an error in the report at paragraph 10 .45
on page 124.
This is actually meant to refer to the neighboring property
known as Green Bank Cottage rather than Wayside.
Wayside is actually the property on the far side.
So if you could just all be aware of that and if that can be
minuted, please, as well.
And then also, it's been brought to my attention as a typo on page 127, paragraph 10 .60.
This is meant to say a new site access is proposed and the access arrangements have
been reviewed by highways who have raised no objection.
At the moment it says not.
That's meant to say to the proposals.
So there's no objection to the proposal from highways.
Just to move into the presentation then, so the application site is set in Kyneton.
You can see here on the slide it's the site outlined in red and there's an
existing kind of stable block which is positioned in the south of the site.
Here this aerial photograph shows the listed buildings in orange. You can see a
public footpath also runs to the south, you know, below. Those are agricultural
buildings kind of to the south of the site. It's also set within the Cotswold National
Landscape. And for the purposes of the application, it is considered to be set within the non -principal
settlement of Kyneton, and therefore we would have applied policy DS3 in terms of the local
plan. So originally we did have some plans that were submitted, and we have kind of secured
amendments following negotiation with the applicant. So this is the original proposal
that came in in the original layouts and those elevations.
And we've worked with the conservation and design officer
and the applicant and the design has been amended.
So the layout slightly similar still.
You can see there is an additional access off the road,
kind of just south of the current access at the site.
And the structure, it now takes more of a kind
of traditional barn conversion.
So that's kind of the appearance that it now has.
So if we go through the photographs now, you can see that's the stable block.
The picture on the left -hand side, that's the agricultural buildings to the rear.
And then there's a roadside photograph of the stable block from the road.
And that's the existing access there on the top drawing on the right.
And that just shows the road going through.
So you can see the site's slightly elevated in the area.
And on one of the drawings here you can see a section drawing showing kind of
the how the access will kind of go up through the bank of land. So on balance
the design is considered acceptable and it's considered to have a neutral impact
on the heritage assets and the character of the landscape. It should also be noted
that highways and the conservation design officer have no objection to the
amended design of the proposal. We have had quite a lot of concerns from
neighboring dwellings, as well, in respect of impact
upon amenity.
However, the proposal is considered to satisfy
the separation distances outlined in the design code,
and any impact would be considered to be kind of low
level and wouldn't warrant refusal in this instance.
We've also received a preliminary ecological
appraisal, and this has been reviewed by the
biodiversity officer, and no objection has been raised.
And there are kind of a number of conditions there,
securing enhancements for biodiversity.
But overall, the process is considered to comply with the
relevant local plan policies, and it is recommended that
planning permission be granted.
So that concludes the presentation.
Thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:24:42
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:24:42
Thank you very much.Before we move on to the speakers,
you all had a chance to read the additional comments on page six
of the additional pages.
If not, you can have 20 seconds because it's very short.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:25:22
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:25:22
Thank you very much.So I would like to ask the speakers to come forward.
So for the Temple Guiding Parish Council,
we have Councillor Lisa Hanks.
The objector is James Amdige.
Is that how you pronounce your name, James?
Great, thanks.
The agent is Mark Pettit.
And the ward member is Councillor Len Wilkins.
So once again to remind you,
you have three minutes to speak.
And so be concise and you'll be told
at the end of the three minutes
you can finish your sentence then.
but that will be it.
So if I can start with Councillor Hanks, please.
Town/Parish Council - 1:26:10
Town/Parish Council - 1:26:10
Thank you.Thank you.
I'm speaking on behalf of the residents of Kyneton,
a hamlet of just 23 homes.
Of these, 17 households have submitted formal objections
representing 74 % of the village.
The level of this opposition speaks volumes.
The concerns raised are serious, justified and widely held.
The proposed building is wholly unsuited to the site as 6 .6 metres high, it's too tall,
overwhelms the plot and would tower over the cottages opposite, disrupting the historic vista and the visual tapering of the edge of the village.
It ignores the principles laid out in the Cotswold Design Code.
The design is barn -style, modernised with full height glazing.
This may work in some contexts, but not here.
Kyneton is defined by long, low, traditional Cotswold stone cottages,
and this proposal is entirely out of keeping.
This house would dominate, not complement the building environment.
Access for vehicles is another major concern.
The proposed driveway is steep and narrow and occupies what little remains of the site
It may allow for three spaces
But leaves no room for turning meaning cars would reverse in or out of a narrow rural lane
This lane is not quiet. It is already used by agricultural vehicles
tourist cars cyclists and traffic to the halfway up
Despite no formal objection from highways take it from me
is a safety risk. In addition this development offers no public benefit. It
is not affordable housing. It results in a 57 % biodiversity loss to the hamlet. It
leaves a tiny garden and it removes a plot that was previously served as a
therapeutic and rural use. We believe it fails to meet five key Cotswold local
plan policies. DS3, that the development must be proportionate, support local vitality and
complement the settlement's character. It does none of these.
EN2, development must respect the area's character and distinctiveness. This one has its own
character but it's out of tune with the area. EN4, proposals must respond to historic landscape
character. It does not. It jars with it completely. EN10. Harm to heritage settings must be outweighed
by public benefit. Here there is no benefit at all. EN5. Great weight must be given to
conserving and enhancing the AONB. This development does neither. Given the strength of the local
objection, the policy breaches and the sensitivity of the site, we urge the
committee to refuse this application or at the very least request a site visit
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:29:20
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:29:20
to appreciate the scale, topography and context. Thank you. Thank you very much.Town/Parish Council - 1:29:25
Town/Parish Council - 1:29:25
Objector - 1:29:28
Objector - 1:29:28
Now can I ask Mr. Entidge to speak? Yeah. Hello, my name is James Entidge, I'm anI was born and raised in Kynson and my parents rent the stable yard from Corpus Christi College and have done for 35 years
And my first objection relates to the local plan policy DS 3
The site of the stables sits on the western side of the village
Which is clearly outside of the existing envelope of the settlement
The envelope predominantly sits on the eastern side of the road and this was the conclusion that was made in the pre -application
stage where officers found that the site sits outside of the existing form of the settlement
and therefore was contrary to the local plan policy DS3. So I asked the members to ask the
officers why has this opinion changed since the pre -application stage when the position of the
site has not. It's only the designs that have changed since but the position of the site remains
the same. The site of the stables is prominently positioned in the local landscape outside of the
envelope of the settlement next to open countryside consisting of agricultural farmland. It is
also elevated up high on a bank, elevated up from the road, thus the proposed development
would tower down over the road and the listed house and barn opposite. The eastern side
of the village is set lower down with properties that are smaller in height that complement
the character of the surrounding countryside. This very tall development over six metres
will sit enormously high up on a very high bank encroaching into the open
countryside. So I ask again for members to ask the officers how is this not
contrary to local plan policy DS3 and how will this not negatively impact the
Cotswolds as an area of outstanding natural beauty. My second objection
focuses on the affordability of this development were it to go ahead. There is
not a single affordable house in Keinton and as such it is incredibly hard for
local people, especially young families who were born in the area or live and work in
the area in key jobs such as farming or teaching to buy a house there.
So I respectfully ask that if you must approve this development, I would ask you to consider
putting a covenant on it stating that it has to be an affordable house sold to somebody
who lives and works in the area.
There are similar covenants on houses in Guiting Power and Launton, the neighbouring villages,
but there aren't in Kyneton.
One way to make it more affordable is to scale it down in size to a single story
so that it echoes the current size and scale and positioning of the existing
stable block which you saw in a photo earlier it's just a single story stable
block and this is a six and a half meter proposed and a stone building in its
place. This would also balance out the ratio of house and garden and parking as
currently the proposed house is excessively large and dominant with two
smaller garden and parking. So scaling down the size of the house and adding a
covenant on it would make the site more affordable and more practical for a
local young family. So in summary I do object to the development in its
entirety and I argue that the site sits outside of the envelope of the
settlement as the officers themselves noted in the pre -application
stage thus I believe it's contrary to the local plan policy DS3. Is that my
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:32:43
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:32:43
time up. Okay, thank you very much. That's your time up, well done. Thank you very much.Applicant/Agent - 1:32:52
Applicant/Agent - 1:32:52
And now we move on to the agent, Mr Pettit. Thank you, thank you chair, members of thecommittee. My name is Mark Pettit, I'm a chartered town planner who works for Fowler Architecture
and Planning and I prepared and submitted this planning application. The application
is recommended for approval and we fully support this recommendation. Firstly, it's worth noting
that this application follows pre -application advice
that we received from the council in January last year.
And during the course of this current application,
we've worked proactively with the planning officer
to ensure that the scheme is acceptable from a design
and conservation point of view.
In terms of the principle of residential development
in this location, policy de -history of the local plan
allows small -scale residential development
in non -principal settlements such as Carrington.
And the committee report clearly outlines why the proposals would
comfortably satisfy the requirements of this policy.
The scheme would make more effective use of previously developed land at the time when the council cannot currently demonstrate a five -year supply of housing land.
One new dwelling would make a small but meaningful contribution in its respect.
It would also be the first new build dwelling approved in Kyneton over the local plant period and in this respect would make a positive contribution to the vitality of this rural community.
This is recognizing the NPPF which outlines the need to identify opportunities for villages
to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services, in this case
the local pub.
With regards to conservation, the site does not fall within a conservation area and the
existing stables are not considered to be of any historical or architectural interest
that would justify their retention.
Members will note that the conservation officer raises no objection to the proposals and this
follow significant changes that we have made to the scheme during the course of the application.
The proposed dwelling is a charming barn -like property, appropriate to this edge of village
location. The traditional approach we have taken will allow the dwelling to settle comfortably
in this location and not adversely impact the setting of nearby listed buildings. A
high quality pallet of local materials will ensure that the dwelling blends in successfully
with the fabric of Cuyton. From a landscape point of view, the proposals will have a minimal
impact on the Cotswolds national landscape.
Indeed, the dwelling will be positioned on a part of the site
where there is already built form with a generous gap left
to the nearest property to the north.
The site stands within the built -up area of the village,
and it is against the backdrop of existing buildings
that the house will be red when viewed from the public right
of way to the south.
The proposals will not appear cramped or contrived,
and we have kept the height of the dwelling down
so that it doesn't appear visually prominent
or out of place in the street scene. No issues arise from a residential amenity
point of view with a house positioned a good distance away from all neighbouring
residential properties. Furthermore there are no technical reasons why this
application should not be approved with no objection being raised by the tree
officer, highways, ecology and the public right -of -way officer. The applicants are
happy to accept the suggested conditions including those relating to materials,
landscaping, tree protection, ecological enhancements and lighting. Set against
this backdrop it's respectfully requested that planning permission be
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:36:03
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:36:03
granted accordingly in line with your officer's recommendation. Thank you.Thank you very much. Just pipped in at the post there. Now
Ward Member - 1:36:13
Ward Member - 1:36:13
Councillor Wilkins as the ward member you have five minutes.Thank you Chair. Kuynton I know very well partly because I first of all canvassed it.
Then I got elected to look after it and we got a lot of work done on the problems they
have on the work at the north.
We got the cluster of quarries and you've heard that 74 % of the village doesn't like
this.
I know, what are you going to say?
Sorry.
It's not the objectors and the amount of objectors you've got.
I need some planning reasons to clone this down.
I'd like to thank my colleagues there, the parish council and the ejector who's done most of the work for me.
But let's look at the planning.
You've heard about DS3.
This is a building that is totally out of proportion to the site.
It's actually two -thirds bigger than the stables that exist at the moment.
So that's a loss of ground area.
It's also twice as high.
It was a single -storey stable block.
Light pollution, which we'll come on back to in a second,
is going to be a major problem here.
And at the moment it's used as a carriageway by a lot of wildlife
to get from different parts of the village.
And we're going to lose that because it's going to be a house and they're going to avoid it.
Anyway, back to the plan.
It dominates the site.
It's too high.
It's too big.
and it's next to a seven -year -old building.
It's also opposite to two listed buildings.
So from the point of view of proportion to the site,
sorry, this one doesn't run.
It says in DS3 that you must support
or enhance the vitality of the local community.
We're talking about a three -bedroom house.
The only amenities at Kyneton are the halfway house pub,
which does a fantastic Sunday lunch, by the way.
Now, what are we going to get in terms of vitality?
We're going to get extra people at the bar.
But that's all that Kyneton is going to get out of this.
There's got an amenity at the moment of the stables,
and that amenity is used not just by Kyneton people,
but by disadvantaged children who come from, sorry,
Cotswolds and from Cheltenham, and who benefit from being
introduced to labor.
They meet the animals, they do riding.
And that amenity that Kaitlyn uses and Kaitlyn works with
will be taken away.
There are no other amenities.
There's no local services, there's no shop, no post office.
And hence the reason why the villages, sorry, villages,
it's not just a hamlet, why the residents feel so strongly about
this, as do I.
DS3 says there's 160 villages and hamlets.
and not sustainable locations for residential development.
This is one of them.
The application is in breach of EN1.
It says any new development, where appropriate,
promotes a protection, conservation, enhancement
of historic and natural environment.
You've heard the stables have been there for years.
And this is an actual reverse.
You're taking away an amenity, and you're
in a barn shaped house which is going to cause problems.
EN2, it's insensitive, it's not in the Cotswolds or that village.
It differs from the village houses.
You've heard from the parish counsellor who said,
it's this, it's this, it's this.
Oh, it's unwacked, great big barn, thanks guys.
Croydon's beautiful.
I would recommend a site visit, it's worth it to go to the pub.
And the natural beauty of the landscape, you are going to lose that.
You're going to put a great big carbuncle at the end of the village, which as you've already heard,
it's on a raised area and therefore it's going to stand out.
And it'll be a great shame.
You've heard about the biodiversity loss, 57 .65%.
There is a pond there at the moment, it's going to be moved.
Oh, that would be great, wouldn't it, for biodiversity?
No, it won't, because it's going to be moved in an area where it
will be less of use to the frogs, the newts,
and the other little things who enjoy it at the moment.
EN10, the proposal says the character appearance and
significance of designed assets.
Well, here the assets are being destroyed.
The stables that have been used by residents over the years to
learn to ride for their children,
for our disadvantaged children, they're going.
You're going to get a three bedroom
lookalike barn in its place.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:41:14
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:41:14
NPF 16, heritage assets.Councillor Wilkins, I think you've had your time up now.
Okay, thank you. I'll just leave you there anyway.
Yeah, I can see you feel passionate.
There you go.
Ward Member - 1:41:24
Ward Member - 1:41:24
Point of order, Chair.Yes, how are we?
Councillor Ian Watson - 1:41:33
Councillor Ian Watson - 1:41:33
Sorry, apologies.Council will concern this on this committee making decision but it sounds to me as though it's already made his mind up.
I will not be voting.
Okay. Is that okay from a...
That would be correct.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:41:49
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:41:49
Would you recommend that he takes no further part in the debate in that case?Officer - 1:41:55
Officer - 1:41:55
Thank you, yes I would ask the Councillor to leave the chamber forCouncillor Dilys Neill - 1:41:59
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:41:59
this item.We'll see you back in a minute then, thank you very much.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:42:05
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:42:05
Would the other speakers like to return to their seats? Thank you very much.Thank you very much.
So there was no site inspection briefing for this, so we move on to members
Councillor Andrew Maclean - 1:42:24
Councillor Andrew Maclean - 1:42:24
questions Councillor McLean I think you're the first person. Thank you. My question isthis. Just recently we went to the neighbouring village of Temple Guiting to look at a proposed
farm yard development where they were proposing to build three lookalike barns and we turned
it down because we said they were very inappropriate for the Cotswold landscape and it wasn't a
conversion it was building barns, the houses that look like barns for the sake of it and we were
very much advised that this was wrong and we should vote against that. Why is this one different to
temple guiding just up the road on the same road? Why should someone build a look -alike barn?
It's not converting a barn but it's just making a barn to look like it's being converted. So
what's the difference between this one and the other side just up the road? Thank you.
Thank you.
Officer - 1:43:17
Officer - 1:43:17
I'm not familiar with the application you're referring to,unfortunately, so I can only really discuss this one
on its merits.
I mean, in terms of the design of this site, there is a built
form on there which is a stable block.
You do have the large agricultural buildings to the
south of the site, and the building has kind of echoed
with additional appearance of a barn, which does really reflect
the rural character in which it's set.
So in terms of when we're looking at it against the design
code and policy EN2, and subsequently following
discussions with the Conservation and Design Officer there aren't any
Councillor Andrew Maclean - 1:43:50
Councillor Andrew Maclean - 1:43:50
objections to the proposal as it stands in this instance. I'm just very surprisedbecause this is the existing building is very modern the building to the south I
walk there quite often so I know this site very well the building to the south
is also very modern there's no traditional Cotswold barn there at all
is there so it's just replacing a very modern form of agricultural buildings
with something that looks a bit like something that might have been there but
Officer - 1:44:14
Officer - 1:44:14
was well I mean I suppose it is a representing like a traditional barn it'skind of echoing that appearance it could be considered to be prestige development
in that regard but it's you know we have to look at it against the design code
and there's not really you know it does appear all in character and we consider
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:44:38
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:44:38
it to be in keeping with the area I should say I I remember cool with theyou're referring to.
I think, obviously, I'm not, we have to look at this and say merit, so I'm not going to
go back over that previous scheme.
But I think there is a difference between a successful sort of faux barn design versus
an unsuccessful one.
From my recollection of that previous one, it was three very large barns in a very unusual
shape around what they were sort of preparing was a courtyard, but wasn't really, it was,
I think, members have to bear in mind, it comes sometimes just comes down to the success.
And that's obviously for members to decide, you know, our view is that it is successful.
I would say it's the same conservation and design office that's advising on this one as it was that previous one
So it does come down to the success of the design as much as the principle of how they're approaching it in this case
We're considering that the designers of a quality
That reflects what we expect in that location and indeed that the fits within its context in this particular part of this village
So but you know, I understand the point
Yeah, I think it comes down to the success of the design as much as the principle and approach they've taken to it
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:45:36
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:45:36
Councillor Fowls.Councillor David Fowles - 1:45:40
Councillor David Fowles - 1:45:40
I want to partly build on what Councillor McCain has just said.In terms of policy, given where we are with policy that's now becoming outdated,
is this application and the comments that have been made by the parish council and the ward member,
in keeping with where we are now in terms of the policy changes that we've seen,
because I know that certain parts of DS1 and so on have changed,
and my concern is that are we dealing with something that's a policy in transition,
so directing that either at the case office or at you, Harrison.
And secondly, I've got issues about the design which builds on that,
because DS3 does talk about complements the form and character of the settlement
and it would appear from what the parish council have been saying on the ward
member that the houses that are there and there aren't that many of them are
very very different, much lower down. I'm particularly concerned about the size and
the comments that we made by Councillor McLean about the look and the feel of
the place being a modern barn. So two questions, one is where are we in
of policy in relation to this and secondly this issue of design particular
scale of the design bearing in mind that most of this development appears to
historical appears to be on the right of that road could you answer
Officer - 1:47:14
Officer - 1:47:14
this thankyou yes the first thing in terms of policy ds3 yes that would now be out of
date in light of the council's housing supply and housing figures so we then
Officer - 1:47:29
Officer - 1:47:29
I think it's important still in terms of the local plan just to see, we would considerit still to be a sustainable location because the way that the local plan works is it seeks
to direct development to the most sustainable locations.
So in the first instance it would be principal settlements and then non -principal settlements.
And then we try and direct development away from the open countryside.
So in that respect I think it's still quite useful in terms of how we then look at the
national framework.
So it is considered by us to be a sustainable location because
of that policy DS3.
So I think it's worth bearing that in mind.
But obviously then we do have to kind of go back to paragraph 11
of the MPPF, which, you know, is outlined within the report
as well, which you can kind of have a read through
in the principal section.
But overall, we don't find a conflict.
We haven't identified a conflict with the local plan policies,
and therefore, so it is out of date policy day three.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:48:31
Councillor David Fowles - 1:48:31
And so, let's drill down a bit on the issue of the design,because in a briefing before we were talking about,
I think it was the Deputy Chairman who referred to, you know,
something regarded as poor quality design, who makes that decision.
In terms of this design being appropriate,
is that a decision that you as the case officer
in reference to colleagues in the department have made?
Because obviously the parish council and the ward member
and the objective feel that it's an inappropriate design.
Officer - 1:48:59
Officer - 1:48:59
I'm interested in the balance there.Yes, so I've worked with the Conservation and Design Officer on this.
So I did show you an earlier drawing on the presentation showing the earlier design,
which first of all came in.
So there were concerns with that from the Conservation Officer.
And we've kind of worked with the applicant and they've kind of come in with a different proposal
and now at a stage where we're satisfied that it does meet the design code.
Obviously if members don't feel that it does that would be your opinion and
right to consider but the officers opinion is which is my own under the
Conservation Office and Design Officer is that it's acceptable in design.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:49:38
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:49:38
Councillor Brassington. Thank you Chair. Just got two questions.Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:49:45
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:49:45
Could you tell me what is the height of existing building and what is the height of the proposed building?Officer - 1:50:07
Officer - 1:50:07
We can just have a look at the plans if you don't mind just waiting one moment, sorry.Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:50:22
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:50:22
You could probably answer that, Harry. One of the objectives is says objects on the groundof overdevelopment. Is there a definition of overdevelopment at all?
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:50:34
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:50:34
No, not a specific definition. It comes down case by case on a site basis.Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:50:53
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:50:53
Would you like a little bit more time to find it?I'm just trying to get to it.
Sorry, I have a lot of access to measuring the plans at the moment.
Okay, we'll move on to the next question and come back to you with an answer for that.
Councillor Watson.
Councillor Ian Watson - 1:51:07
Councillor Ian Watson - 1:51:07
Oops, sorry, wrong button.Thank you, Chair. I read quite carefully through here and I can't see personally in material planning consideration why this should not go ahead.
I understand there's a lot of heat of light about this,
and especially the point about houses for poorer people.
But is there any material planning consideration
why this should not go ahead?
We've gone through the considerations
within the report.
And in our officer's opinion is that it is supported.
Thank you.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:51:53
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:51:53
How are you getting on if you found the answer?I can do the proposed.
Sorry.
Councillor Coleman.
Okay, we'll move on to Councillor Coleman.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:52:04
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:52:04
Our officers find out the answer to that.Thank you, Chair.
I suppose my question is, given that the site is pretty well constrained, and you know it
In principle, would it be possible to have a pair of semis there?
Are there any semi -detached houses anywhere else in this village?
Thinking about whether we might get a slightly greater contribution towards our housing and
land supply if we had two small rather than one big.
Officer - 1:52:35
Officer - 1:52:35
We can only look at the proposal as it stands and I think we feel that one single dwellingwould be preferable on the site in terms of going back to the policy DS3 really.
You know, it would be more in keeping with the scale and the area and the character of
kind and so that's why this kind of one's come in.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:52:57
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:52:57
Thank you.Councilman Clay.
Have you come up with the answer?
Officer - 1:53:07
Officer - 1:53:07
Yes, I think in terms of heights, we believe it to be approximately 8 metres in heightto the ridge line. We don't have a drawing of the existing stable block to measure off
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:53:20
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:53:20
the height, but obviously that is single storey, so it's going to be much lower.Officer - 1:53:24
Officer - 1:53:24
Do you know the average height of a single storey building off the top of your head?I would have thought around 4, 4 .5, but that is a guess.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:53:30
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:53:30
Three to four metres, I would say.Twice the height, essentially.
potentially.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:53:34
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:53:34
Um, Councillor McLean.Councillor Andrew Maclean - 1:53:38
Councillor Andrew Maclean - 1:53:38
Thank you.Some of the objections were about the potential light pollution.
And if you look at the drawing, it's got three, obviously, supposed to be barn doors that
have filled in with very large glazed areas.
Is there, if we did allow it, is there any way of controlling the light pollution from
this from this barn lookalike with those very large glaze areas. I know they're
not reflecting back at the village but they are reflecting out at the
countryside and some of the worry is about the effect on wildlife and things
so is there any way we can control the amount that the light pollution from
Officer - 1:54:16
Officer - 1:54:16
such a building? Thank you. Thank you yes I believe we have a condition onrelating to external lighting which has been recommended. Internal lights we
don't can wouldn't be of control wouldn't be controlled by the condition
So it's only the external lighting which would be,
we have asked for further details,
and then that would be run past the biodiversity team
to ensure that protected species, you know,
Councillor Andrew Maclean - 1:54:40
Councillor Andrew Maclean - 1:54:40
we're okay with the level of lighting proposed.But my question's about, it would be about internal,
because it's coming out through those very large glazed areas.
So we wouldn't have any control over what happened,
because we can't tell them they have
to shut the curtains, obviously.
Officer - 1:54:54
Officer - 1:54:54
Yes, of course.So there would be a degree of additional light from the site from the internal lighting.
However, it is again, it's kind of next to the settlement is in the settlement in our opinion.
So it wouldn't be kind of out of character or wouldn't lead to a level of harm in terms of terms of dark skies to warrant refusal in respect to the national landscape.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:55:18
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:55:18
Thank you, Councillor Watson.Councillor Ian Watson - 1:55:21
Councillor Ian Watson - 1:55:21
Helen, just for the sake of, for me and maybe some members of the committee, what is a unilateralundertaking?
I believe that's in relation to the next application item.
A unilateral undertaking isn't required on this application, I don't believe.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:55:43
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:55:43
Thank you.Thank you.
Skipped ahead there.
Yeah, are there any other questions? Okay comments, then please.
Councillor Ian Watson - 1:55:58
Councillor Ian Watson - 1:55:58
Defending silence. Yeah, my comment is I'm just concerned about the size of this.Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:56:03
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:56:03
We're effectively doubling the height of the building and to me that's a bitCouncillor Dilys Neill - 1:56:14
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:56:14
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:56:15
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:56:15
I don't want to get a reputation for asking for site visits, but I think I know that CouncillorBrussington was, in his time as chair of this committee, was much more positive towards
site visits than some of his predecessors. But I think that might be a good idea in this
case. I'm finding it difficult to judge without having some information from colleagues on
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:56:41
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:56:41
site even if I don't get there. Yeah thank you. Appraisal for a site visitseconded by Councillor Fowles but we'll come to that in a minute unless you want
to make a comment.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:56:53
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:56:53
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:56:57
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:56:57
Okay. So the reason I'd like to be able to see to judge the height issue lookingat least at the status quo ideally if the applicant has been the case in the
past if not recently could erect a couple of frames to indicate the height
of the proposed building. Also like to get a feel for the architectural context
of what is a small and non -principal settlement and I think that's probably
the main issue. I don't think there are big issues with overlooking but we can
check when we're there and I don't think traffic or highways is likely to be
important. I think it's just whether it's in short would we be creating
something that as you come into the village particularly I think from the
south I don't know oh and these you know I was my attention drawn to that and we
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:57:52
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:57:52
don't as a rule unless it's something very special we don't like thatCouncillor Patrick Coleman - 1:57:54
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:57:54
so in aCouncillor Dilys Neill - 1:57:55
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:57:55
very non -professional way that's my reason.Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:57:58
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:57:58
Councillor Fowls, do you want to add anything to that reason?I never thought I'd be agreeing with the former chairman and vice -chairman as much as I am today.
But I think, exactly, I think also we're using the word village when in fact it's a hamlet.
It's very, very small.
And I respect everything the case officer said and the changes in policy,
but I'm just concerned that the size and the height in particular in relation to the rest of the settlement
I think Patrick's put it very well. Would your eye be drawn to it when you're when you come into the village and
particularly bearing in mind what Councillor McLean said about
the barns
In temple guiding. I think we should go and look there because once
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:58:42
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:58:42
it's there it's there foreverThank you very much. Are you proposing a panel or a
firstly would be happy with a panel but
Councillor David Fowles - 1:58:52
Councillor David Fowles - 1:58:52
I don't know what the proposer thinks.Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:58:54
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:58:54
Thank you, Jay.Yes, more practical reason too.
We're struggling to get many people to some of these meetings.
We only had two or three at the last few, so I'll definitely go for a panel
and then make certain that everybody gets a sub if they can't attend.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:59:09
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:59:09
Okay. Are you happy with that?Yeah, I'd say just for reference, the Constitution requires
for site inspection briefings that we need to be considered.
they need to be just fun and planning grounds and strict criteria holding them
is as follows to consider the character and appearance of the development itself
where that's a fundamental planning consideration the judgment is required
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:59:30
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:59:30
in the visual impact or the setting and surroundings of fundamentaldetermination the conditions being considered so I'm very satisfied those
points first and second point of those that have been satisfied by what Councillor
Common has said so that seems reasonable to me.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:59:42
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:59:42
Councillor Bridges.Councillor Nick Bridges - 1:59:44
Councillor Nick Bridges - 1:59:44
Okay, I'm not sure if it's a comment or a question, but it's about 8 .6.Highways consider access to be insufficient.
There are safety issues.
Are there guidelines that I should be considering as to whether that's good or bad?
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:00:05
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:00:05
Because does it actually make any difference given this is a double -sized building?Sorry, we'll allow this as you're a novice, but we're now onto comments.
Councillor Nick Bridges - 2:00:12
Councillor Nick Bridges - 2:00:12
I am sure our highways officer will answer that for you.Consider access to be insufficient, safety issues. I am just wondering
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:00:24
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:00:24
how I bear thatin mind.
Councillor Nick Bridges - 2:00:26
Councillor Nick Bridges - 2:00:26
On page 112.I don't think those are our comments.
I think those are comments that have been received from the public comments.
There is a separate section later on that would address highways, highway safety, which
is on page 127 of the report, and it is under criteria F. That there actually refers to
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:01:00
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:01:00
highways comments so there's no objection from this is essentiallythank you that was an objectus comment from the village thanks did you have any
other questions comments comments we're under comments now yeah okay thanks are
Councillor Nick Bridges - 2:01:18
Councillor Nick Bridges - 2:01:18
there any other comments or any other proposals indeedCouncillor Andrew Maclean - 2:01:20
Councillor Andrew Maclean - 2:01:20
counselor McLean I fully understand my colleagues who don't know the area verywell wanting to go on a site visit I actually know this area very well it's
one of my regular cycling routes.
And I just think this is a very, very special part
of the Cotswold National Landscape.
It's a beautiful, unspoiled area with a small hamlet in it.
So my mind is actually made up.
I just think this is a very inappropriate development
for that place.
But I'm happy, because I think people
who don't know the village as well as I do
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:01:50
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:01:50
need to go and see it to appreciate it.Councillor Andrew Maclean - 2:01:52
Councillor Andrew Maclean - 2:01:52
But I am pretty much anti.If others weren't visiting, I'd be
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:01:59
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:01:59
happy to propose rejecting the officer's recommendation. Does anyone want tosecond rejecting the officer's recommendation? Not at the moment. Do we
have any other proposals on the table? So we'll vote for the site inspection
briefing for the reasons given to look at the character of the village and to
Councillor David Fowles - 2:02:28
Councillor David Fowles - 2:02:28
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:02:52
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:02:52
There are eight of us in the chamber at themoment and there's seven in favour of a site inspection
briefing and one abstention.
So that will be on the 2nd of July.
That's going to be a panel, is it?
A panel, yes.
We'll have a look at the makeup of the panel when we
arrive at agenda item 12.
Given the councilor can claim those plans and so
I'm going to go off to show him the rest of the tour.
I'm going to go back to that.
You can make your own personal arrangements as you will,
Councillor Fowles.
That's very kind of you.
I think we're not allowed to go into the pub
after we've done our site inspection,
which is a great pity.
There we go.
I'm going for a coffee.
OK.
Right.
So that decision will be deferred until our next meeting.
Right.
So now we're moving on to the next application and I'm going to have to
10 25/00045/FUL - Land North East of Braecroft, Upper Oddington.
10 25/00045/FUL - Land North East of Braecroft, Upper Oddington.
hand over the chair to Councillor Watson as I know the applicant.
Yeah so do you want somebody to come and act as Vice -Chair for you?
Oh, Councillor, come probably.
Yeah, if you wouldn't mind, Harrison, that would be terrific.
You'll call me back when you've finished, that's great.
Yeah, we'll call you back as soon as this item is finished.
We'll finish off the meeting.
Councillor Ian Watson - 2:04:26
Councillor Ian Watson - 2:04:26
Right, we're on to agenda item number 10,which is the erection of a new self -built dwelling
at land northeast of Braecroft Upper Oddington, Gloucestershire.
The applicant's name is Mr Peter Wilsdon.
The case officer is Helen. Helen is still with us. Hello.
And the recommendation is permission subject to the completion of a unit lateral undertaking.
If I can ask the case officer to update and give a report.
Thank you chair. So this the site location plan is here and this is kind
of a map of it so you can see the blue and red dot there and that shows that
indicates where the property is proposed. It's part of the residential garden
belonging to the property known as Braycroft. As you can see it's kind of
set on the outskirts of Upper Oddington and it's outside the conservation area which is
highlighted in kind of the darker green colour. It does hold a prominent elevator position
within the national landscape as you'll see from some of the photographs I'll show you
in a moment. So to begin with I thought it'd be quite useful to share with members kind
of the site history and just to show how the sites evolved in the last kind of 20 to 30
years really. So this is a site kind of an aerial photograph from 2000. As you
can see it had a modest property on the land. In 2014 you can see that this had
been replaced so in 2007 permission was granted for a replacement property and
it's much larger in scale. You can see there there is a tennis court associated
with it as well and then subsequently we've had several applications in for
of an ancillary building and the ancillary building is there at the top of the corner
and that's New Braecroft. What happened with this, it got planning permission to be an
ancillary building and subsequently a change of use application was received for it to
be an independent dwelling which was refused by the local planning authority. However,
it went to the planning inspector and they allowed it at appeal. This is quite key really
in terms of how we look at the site,
because we now looked at it as being under the policy DS3.
So we consider it to be within the non -principal settlement
because that's how the planning inspector looked at it.
And they considered it to be within the settlement.
Since then, we have granted planning permission
for a third dwelling on the site.
So this hasn't been implemented as yet,
but it is an ex -sirn permission.
So you can see this sits between Braecroft and New Braecroft.
It's at a slightly lower level, so the land kind of elevates
up towards the tennis courts.
And then we have also granted planning permission back in
November last year for an annex which was to be associated
with New Braecroft.
So you can see there on the plans that sits to the rear
of New Braecroft, and that's the approved drawing.
So that building has permissions. They've got permission for an annex building.
So, is the tennis court gone now?
So the tennis court's there at the moment, but this hasn't been implemented.
So this is an ex -staff permission. So from 2024 they've got permission to build an annex.
Yes, it's part of it. It does kind of part of the patio area.
So the plan is to kind of take those away, I believe.
This is the current application.
So you can see it sits, the proposal for the self -built
dwelling sits on the same position as the approved annex.
And it has kind of the same built form.
There are changes to the internal layout, obviously,
so that it can be used as an independent dwelling.
So, you know, things that did have a swimming pool previously,
the annex, and now it's kind of got kind
of a living area and kitchen.
And that's the landscaping plan there.
So when we dealt with the annex application,
careful consideration was given to the siting of the annex
and the impact upon the national landscape.
We did work with the landscape consultant
and the previous landscape officer at the council
Officer - 2:09:03
Officer - 2:09:03
to kind of achieve like a standard designthat was acceptable in this kind of prominent location.
And it was kind of subject to landscape drawings
and a planting plan but it was acceptable. So with this application we've also
received this planting plan which has again been reviewed by the Landscape
Consultant and overall we are satisfied that this provides the same kind of
levelers and mitigations previously approved. And these are some site sections
of the drawing of the site and these are the photographs. So here you've got New
Braycroft. This is the original ancillary building which has now got
permission as a dwelling. As you can see this has been slightly sunk back into
the hill and you can start to see there are some kind of quite open views out
from the site. This is the tennis court and there's
Braycroft and there's kind of the estate kind of railings and you can see
out there across the national landscape. The lower picture there shows the
existing access to Braycroft which would also be used by the dwelling that was
permitted last year and it's also proposed to be used by this under this
proposal. Okay so those are the photographs. So in principle we consider
it to be within the non -principal settlement. On balance the design and
the amenity impact are considered to be acceptable. It is acknowledged that we do
have a highways objection to the proposal on grounds that they consider
it to be in an unsustainable location. However I have since spoken to highways
and they didn't really appreciate fully appreciate the site history in terms of
the planning and spectra considering this to be part of the non -principal
settlement which is as just previously discussed it is considered to be a
sustainable location in terms of its principle. So overall it's recommended to
that the planning commission is granted and that's subject
to the completion of a unilateral undertaking.
In terms of the requirement for the unilateral undertaking,
that's effectively a legal agreement and that's needed
in respect of biodiversity net gain.
So, you know, a self -build dwelling is exempt
from the biodiversity net gain requirement and that's just kind
of added security really to ensure compliance
with that mandatory requirement.
So that's what we're waiting for.
We're just waiting for the completion of that.
So it would be kind of the recommendation is granting permission subject to the completion.
So a decision wouldn't be issued until that agreement had been signed and secured by legal
services.
Thank you.
Happy to take any questions.
Thanks.
Applicant/Agent - 2:12:15
Applicant/Agent - 2:12:15
Thank you members for the opportunity to speak today.I will be brief and simply take the opportunity to highlight some of the issues that your
case officer has actually just set out that are included within her report.
The first issue is clearly the principle of an open market house on the site.
Is that acceptable in principle?
Yes, as you have just heard, and as the officer sets out in 10 .13 to 10 .17, the principal
is acceptable because it is considered to sit within the envelope of the village and
therefore the S3 applies.
And therefore small -scale open market housing is obviously acceptable, subject to other
considerations like highway impact, landscape impact, et cetera.
So turning to the landscape impact within the Cotswolds
National Landscape, you can see that concerns were raised by the ward
councilor regarding, as he puts it, over development of the site
and the suburbanization of the Cotswolds National Landscape
via the expected addition of non -rural paraphernalia,
i .e. sheds, garden, furniture, et cetera.
I think the point that hasn't been accepted there is that this site actually falls within the garden of a residential dwelling.
So you would expect that non -rural paraphernalia within that area anyway.
And that is further backed up by your officer's report at 10 .26.
When she notes that planning permission has previously been granted as she's just set out for you.
For the annex building on the site.
It's noteworthy and just to reinforce what Helen has already told you,
that the dwelling would be in the same position as the annex that's been approved
and of the same scale and the same design.
So that is key because that is an important fallback for us.
The only difference on the ground, as it were,
is that a spur has been taken off the existing driveway to provide access to the site,
together with two parking spaces and turning for the dwelling.
So those are the only changes that you'll see on the ground.
And as I say, these matters have been carefully considered
by your case officer in consultation
with the landscape officer.
And they are content that any intensification
of the use of the site would be very low level
and not warrant refusal.
And paragraph 10 .49 confirms that there
are no objections from the highways officer relating
to highway safety.
Clearly, your case officer has just
touched on the other issue around sustainability,
but I think we've addressed that in terms of DS3 element.
And the unilateral undertaking is actually with us listed
at the moment, so I expect that to be provided
to the case officer very shortly.
Thank you very much for your time.
Julia Gibson, Officer - 2:15:30
Julia Gibson, Officer - 2:15:30
Chair, members of the committee, I apologize for not being able to attend today's meeting.I had asked that this recommendation be brought to committee for consideration, as I believe
that consistency of decision -making is an important cornerstone of planning policy.
This has been ratified through several high -profile cases that have highlighted the importance
of LPA's holding to a uniform approach, for example,
co -op versus forestedine.
The new intended use of this site as a standalone dwelling
appears in direct contravention to the rationale for the earlier
approval for a structure on site due to the additional
requirements that a full -time residence will bring.
Specifically, decision notice 23 slash 02885 slash full
condition eight states, quote, the development hereby permitted
shall not be used other than the purposes ancillary to the residential
use of the dwelling currently known as New Braidcroft and for no other purpose.
The reason the independent use of the building would raise potential issues
relating to the sustainability of the location, access, parking, residential
amenity and the impact of such use on the character and appearance of the
Cotswold National Landscape having regard to local plan policies DS3, EN1,
EN2, EN4, EN5, INF4, and INF5."
Given this statement, I failed to see how the LPA can approve
the application in front of you and remain consistent.
The overdevelopment of this plot and the suburbanization of the
Cotswold National Landscape by the expected addition of
non -rural paraphernalia, i .e.
sheds, garden furniture, et cetera, is an unacceptable
encroachment of the built form into the countryside, contrary to NPPF section 15 paragraph 189.
The reason that this is important is that as those members who made the site visit will
know, this site is in a prominent position on a ridge line. The ridge has wide -ranging
views from several public footpaths and particularly Oddington footpath 14. Although a private
view is not protected in law, public views are via the NPPF and the Town and Country
planning out to 1990.
Whilst the swimming pool complex,
ancillary to the main dwelling would
have benefited from limited use, for example, lower light
pollution, a new dwelling will, by nature
of its more intensive use, be more visible and therefore
intrusive.
Such intrusion shifts the level of harm
to the appearance and tranquility
of the Cotswold National Landscape
much closer to levels which should be considered
substantial. The addition of a single dwelling does not provide adequate
public benefit to mitigate this harm. This goes against Cotswold District
Council Local Plan EN4 and EN5 as well as DS3A and D. The new building will be
about 25 meters from the existing dwelling and as such the immunity
safeguards set out in Cotswold District Council LP EN2 appear to be severely
limited. Claims that the new dwelling will initially be in the ownership of
the existing resident does not constitute mitigation of this policy. I
would therefore ask the committee to refuse this application on the grounds
that the over intensification of use of this site will cause harm to the Cotswold
national landscape, contrary to regulations and guidelines set out in
NPPF, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Cotswold District Council's
Councillor Ian Watson - 2:19:15
Councillor Ian Watson - 2:19:15
local plan. Thank you very much that was amazing. We for this agenda point therewas indeed a site visit and two members of this committee went on the site visit
Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:19:38
Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:19:38
and maybe Ray if you want to start off I will conclude. Yeah it's disappointingI think if it was only two of them going along, there should have been about five of us.
Yeah, the site is in a very prominent position.
We had a good loop round. We looked
at the access from the road and by the access
there, the longest footpath, McMillan Way, is right
opposite the entrance to Newbury aircraft. But because of the lie of the land
you wouldn't see much of this proposed building.
You'd probably get a better view if you went to the other part 14, but certainly from the
road there you wouldn't really see it.
What we have to bear in mind is what will be the difference between this application
and the permission they've got for the extant permission.
We have to consider the difference.
Thank you.
Councillor Ian Watson - 2:20:33
Councillor Ian Watson - 2:20:33
Yeah, thank you Ray. Yeah, this was a new part of the world for me and extremely beautifulup there in the North Cotswolds. The location is, if you can imagine, on a hill with the
house at the top. From the road, you can't actually see the house or any of the buildings.
it's quite sympathetically done and the existing bungalow is kind of built into the hillside
so you don't see that from the road. We walked down to the footpath again, views of the houses
almost couldn't see them and along one side was a screen of trees which I understand will remain.
Where the new building will be visible is from the side where there's a field, a large
field and there's a public footpath runs about half a kilometre away from the building.
Also in a valley which I'm not convinced you could actually see it from that footpath.
All in all, for me it was very well looked after.
I mean, the garden, the landscaping was excellent.
I don't know if that bears a relation, but I do agree with Councillor Brassington.
It will be because there is a planning permission for that building already.
It's just a change of views, but that will come in my questions.
Thank you.
Councillor Andrew Maclean - 2:22:10
Councillor Andrew Maclean - 2:22:10
Notwithstanding the local Councillor's opinions,Given that this is in a garden and it's on the village side of the plot, would there be any defensible reasons for refusing this?
I just can't see how we could possibly refuse this and come up with any defensible reasons. Could you find any?
Officer - 2:22:32
Officer - 2:22:32
I think the key thing here is we've got to bear in mind the fallback position. So there is permission for the built form itself.I think members really need to consider the intensification of use and whether that would tip over into
You know being harmful to the national landscape or you know intensification of vehicle movements
But obviously we doing as officers our recommendation is for approval and we consider it to be acceptable against the local plan policies
so
Councillor Andrew Maclean - 2:23:02
Councillor Andrew Maclean - 2:23:02
It would be for members to considerbut intensification of vehicles that my understanding is that the drives are actually quite
wide and they're quite good access onto the road so even there that's not much
Officer - 2:23:16
Officer - 2:23:16
we couldn't really give a reason for defending that. Yes I mean we consider itto be a safe and suitable access it already serves one dwelling it will serve
a second one which has already has the permission and this would be a third
dwelling but yes we do consider it to be acceptable.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:23:34
Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:23:34
On page 143, relevant planning history, which is rather colourful to say the least, 4 .3and 4 .4 the descriptions of the applications there are the same one was
refused and one was granted do you know offhand what was the difference between
those two no sorry I don't have them I don't have access to look at the
drawings at them at the moment that is going back kind of 20 years ago now it
did get the permission eventually so it might have been could design amendments
possibly and then I think ultimately they then got a certificate of
lawfulness for the the property if you see under 4 .6 so it does have a very
detailed planning history I have been through quite a lot of these yes not
for some time sorry I can't answer that right at the moment and we mentioned
footpaths on your pictures Ed was for this picture of where footpath 14 was
because your report says it's going to be very visible from footpath 14.
Officer - 2:24:53
Officer - 2:24:53
Have we got that on to show people?Yes, I'm just going to get this up.
It's on the first, one of the first slides.
So here, so it's footpath 14 is the red line kind of on the right -hand side.
So you can see, you can see it there.
So it's approximately 268 meters away.
It's kind of closest point is the measurement I've taken.
It is considered that kind of that side of the hill is kind
of quite visible, but again, it has the permission,
the built form has the permission, and we did work
with the landscape consultant, and we did seek design changes
under the previous application for the annex.
So now, you know, impacts kind of hopefully be mitigated for.
Councillor Ian Watson - 2:25:37
Councillor Ian Watson - 2:25:37
Councillor Fowls, a question?Councillor David Fowles - 2:25:42
Councillor David Fowles - 2:25:42
Thank you, Chairman. The Parish Council have made a couple of comments on pages 146 and 147.One is in reference to light pollution, yet further on in the officer's report says the nearest other dwelling is 95 metres away.
So are we happy that there isn't an impact in terms of light pollution?
And secondly, they make a comment, or rather thirdly, they make a comment about, it's the
second time that the applicant has used the swimming pool route to secure permission for
a new dwelling.
I just wondered what the swimming pool route suggests going underwater, but I don't know
what they mean by that.
Is there some sort of circuitous, devious process
that we're not aware of, or is that just?
I think that's just referring to the ancillary building routes.
So initially, the permission has been, you know, sought,
and they've, you know, been granted an ancillary building
in the form of new Braecroft.
So that was an ancillary building
to the main house Braecroft.
Officer - 2:26:53
Officer - 2:26:53
And now they've got the annex, permission for the annex,and they're again seeking the permission.
So I think it's just alluding to the fact
that they've had the permissions for the ancillary.
The buildings are sort of southern.
Officer - 2:27:10
Officer - 2:27:10
Yes, I mean, you can see from the slidesthat we've shown how the site has evolved.
Again, if I get these ...
So you can see that that was a site back in 2000 again.
So you can see it has evolved.
there are existing kind of lights on the site.
I mean, in terms of the comment about the distance
to the build, to neighboring properties,
that's really offsite.
The whole of this part of land
is in the applicant's ownership.
So New Breakoff, Dan Breakoff
are currently owned by the applicant.
So I mean, it has to, so the light pollution
is really not considered to be,
it's probably low level impact over and above
what is already permitted with the annex.
Councillor Ian Watson - 2:27:55
Councillor Ian Watson - 2:27:55
you know we can't control who uses the annex okay thanks.Councillor Len Wilkins - 2:27:57
Councillor Len Wilkins - 2:27:57
Council Wilkins.Again my question was on light pollution.
So thank you.
Councillor Andrew Maclean - 2:28:12
Councillor Andrew Maclean - 2:28:12
Well given that the officers couldn't come up with any defensible reasons to reject this I propose that we go with the officer'sCouncillor Ian Watson - 2:28:22
Councillor Ian Watson - 2:28:22
recommendation and accept it.Anybody would like to second that?
I'd like to second that, but bearing in mind, I do have huge
respect for Councillor David Cunningham and his desire to
want to bring this here, but he did say I should be minded to
recommend approval.
If you are minded to recommend approval, like Andrew Maclean,
If there are no reasons for refusal, I find it hard to do anything other than support the officer's recommendation.
I would like to comment on the quality of the slides and the presentation. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Fowle.
And the history. Someone obviously knew what they were doing with the history. I must remember that.
Then I'm going to go back to that more. Any other comments before I know?
So proposed by Councillor Maclean,
seconded by Councillor Fowles.
The recommendation is that we permit subject to the completion
of a unilateral undertaking.
Millennials.
Councillor Ian Watson - 2:29:55
Councillor Ian Watson - 2:29:55
So Leah will take over the chair again..
11 21/01892/FUL - Outbuilding to the East of Poplars Barn, Evenlode, Moreton-In-Marsh.
11 21/01892/FUL - Outbuilding to the East of Poplars Barn, Evenlode, Moreton-In-Marsh.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:31:00
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:31:00
Great. Thank you for your patience. Now we are moving on to the next application on theto Mr. Barry to give us an update. Yes, I members, I'm unfortunately
happy to update the recommendation on this one to defer the
application. You may recall this one was actually deferred from the last
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:31:27
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:31:27
agenda, the committee. As it's transpired since then we've had an issueraised relating to the ecological appraisals that have been undertaken.
Effectively they all have a shelf life and unfortunately the new surveys that
were undertaken have now or they have expired. Effectively when we
present an application to you, we have to be satisfied that we can demonstrate
that they accord with the derogation tests which is a legal requirement. We
currently don't consider that we can present an application to you that
assesses those derogation tests because we don't have up -to -date surveys so
effectively as it's already on the agenda we can't remove it from the
agenda so instead we're recommending that the item is deferred and obviously
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:32:05
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:32:05
that's for you to vote on but yeah that's a recommendation.Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:32:09
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:32:09
recommendation. Councillor Coleman.Through you, probably to Mr Boley. I will start calling you Mr Boley now. Is there any
risk that a double deferment could lead to an application for permission due to non -determination?
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:32:30
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:32:30
Whatever the official phrase is. You can be done if you don't make a decision.In theory the applicants could appeal non -determination. The case officer has been trying to obviously
get hold of them to update these surveys.
I'm, to be honest, we're struggling to get hold of them.
They seem to have been, they're currently not very active
in terms of updating the details.
So we're not necessarily considering that
there's a high risk of that.
There is always a risk of that.
There is also equally a risk of making a decision
where we don't have sufficient information
to satisfy legal tests.
So we are a bit stuck between a rock and a hard place,
but the risk of their appealing non -determination
seems very low in these instances.
And even if they did do that, again,
the inspector would still need to satisfy them to tell themselves those
derogation tests so equally they couldn't allow the appeal.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:33:12
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:33:12
Chair, can we all wish the case officer the absolute best of health for the nextCouncillor Dilys Neill - 2:33:22
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:33:22
four or five weeks? Great thank you very much sir. I think do we need to have aproposer and a seconder to defer? Okay Councillor Bresington, Councillor Fales.
Thank you.
We'll go to the vote then to defer that application.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:33:57
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:33:57
One person.Oh, it's me.
Sorry.
There you go.
So, I don't know that that's come on, but never mind.
That's nine.
There we go.
It's worked now.
Hooray.
Good.
So, we've all voted in favor of deferring that application.
So, we move back to the agenda.
So there is now a site inspection briefing on the 2nd of July.
So the site inspection briefing is required.
So I can't attend that briefing.
So Councillor Watson, you'll be there, will you?
Seconded.
July.
And we need some other people to go. Yes.
I know that in his own work that Councillor Mark Harris has done on the site.
And he's not my member of the commission.
No, that was because I think it was published before he resigned, so there we go.
So, yes.
I can take your place.
Oh, that would be fantastic, Councillor Brasington.
You'll keep us all in order then.
I am available on the second.
That's great.
I'd be happy to take part. Michael Brown, Patrick Coleman.
No.
Is it going to be kinder?
Yes.
At 10 o 'clock?
I should imagine so.
I'm volunteering with No So as an 11.
But that's all my way. Stop on my mic.
That would be lovely, Councillor McLean.
Great. And that would mean that we've got one, two, three, four, five, six.
He's down on the list.
He's not here and Andrew is off to go as a position person.
Yeah, that would be great. That would bring us up to five, which is the level of the panel normally, I think.
I'm sure that Daryl wouldn't object. I'm sure being a member of this group...
Would you like to...
No, I'll happily... He'll be very, very nice.
I'm sure that if people who are not on the panel want to go that's acceptable is it council of Breslington will tell me yeah
if you want
Yeah, and I'm sure you can go just out of interest if you want to go and you have and
Perhaps we can ask that you'll be included in the mailing about it. Yeah councillor Coleman
Sure, I'm sure if I missed this at the start of the meeting and this isn't to do with the site visit
although I am available for a last -minute sub on the 2nd of July.
It's the fact that we can't have the chair and vice -chair of the council on
the same committee which is why councillor Mark Harris beat, this wasn't
spotted in the Constitution in time. Do we have a replacement for councillor
Harris as far as you know?
Not as far as I know and that would be a matter for the Liberal Democrat
group to decide on his replacement? I feel sure of it. I think we can contact the leader
and ask him to find it. In order for the political balance to be maintained, we would have to
ask the leader to come up with another suggestion. Thank you very much. Drawing swiftly to a
Councillor David Fowles - 2:37:39
Councillor David Fowles - 2:37:39
So I think, sorry, Councillor Fowles.We spoke in the comfort break, Chairman, that you were going to ask the Monitoring Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:37:50
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:37:50
a question about talking to members of the public after their application has been heard.Thank you so much for reminding me of that.
Monitoring Officer, I know that we're not allowed to talk to members of the public in
discussion prior to an application being considered but once the application is
decided and everybody moves that to have a cup of coffee or something is it in
order for us to talk to them and once the application has been decided it's
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:38:21
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:38:21
only chair because in my very early days on this council I got in quite a sparringverbally with the relevant officer at the time, Derek I think his name was.
And I thought it was totally unreasonable, these are my people, my ward.
And it was politely explained to me that no, it wasn't wise to do that.
We set the wrong example, set a worse than wrong example, a bad impression if having
taken a decision we then go and appear matey with the people who have been involved on
whichever side.
and so although it hurts a lot the only thing I ever say to the public whoever
however well I know them and however side that voted or whether or not is I'm
very sorry I'm not allowed to speak to you and then it's all clear for all I
wouldn't like to make an exception for after the meeting even though I did
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:39:11
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:39:11
forget about that briefly today okay what do you say would you agree withcouncillor Coleman I must admit that I am swayed by his argument I would it's
all about public perception. In the past, in another authority, I've dealt with complaints
Angela Claridge - 2:39:27
Angela Claridge - 2:39:27
along these lines where there is a perception that somebody has, by perhaps going out afterwardsand having a chummy conversation or perhaps shaking hands or whatever, that in some way
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:39:39
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:39:39
there's been an influence. So I absolutely agree with Councillor Coleman's explanation.Okay, is that clear? Therefore I'd like to apologise to you, Chairman,
and to the committee because the application in question that the chairman of the parish
council, Preston town council, did actually have a word with me and I acknowledge that.
Councillor David Fowles - 2:40:02
Councillor David Fowles - 2:40:02
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:40:03
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:40:03
Councillor David Fowles - 2:40:04
Councillor David Fowles - 2:40:04
So can I just record my apologies and thank for clarification.Could I ask another question if I may, chairman?
Someone said earlier that we're finding it difficult sometimes to get substitutes for
this committee.
bearing in mind it's a regulatory committee,
and I know we operate on Widdecombe rules,
is there any flexibility in that ruling?
So if we can't, because it seems to me it's more
important to have a full complement of members here,
and I didn't know whether there was any flexibility
in whether, for example, if we couldn't find a
substitute, someone on our side wasn't able to attend,
whether we could approach one of the independents
or another group or whatever.
I don't know whether that will get support anywhere else, whether Angela has a view on
it, whatever.
But we had Councillor Julia Judd who couldn't be here today and we could not find a substitute.
And linked to that I think it's critical and I think Ray Brasington actually insisted when
he was chairman that all members have up -to -date planning training so that we have the flexibility
of going to someone who might be available but hasn't got the training.
Laura, our new member, could have substituted but unfortunately she wasn't able to make
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:41:16
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:41:16
Councillor David Fowles - 2:41:18
Councillor David Fowles - 2:41:18
training that was afforded to her. Okay so that's a call out to members who areCouncillor Dilys Neill - 2:41:23
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:41:23
new to make sure they've got the full training. Yes we had an excellenttraining session thank you Harrison on Friday and so it's unfortunate she
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:41:32
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:41:32
couldn't make it but I'm sure you'll be doing some more in the future will you?The training that we did on Friday was recorded and we might have to have a
chat about it because we have to verify members have sat it but I'm sure we can have a
There is also a requirement for sort of training throughout the
year, not just the annual or the mandatory.
So we will be making arrangements for that on a
periodic basis.
But in terms of that mandatory training, it was recorded and we
can work out a system to ensure that members can.
Do you have a list of who's been trained in the analysis?
We should do, yes, yeah.
Do you do?
Yeah, well, I think all members currently, because it's only the
requirement to attend to have the one set of mandatory
training, so all current members should have had that.
New members had that on Friday and as I say it was recorded so we can add to the registrars
and when that gets to the resolution.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:42:18
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:42:18
Angela Claridge - 2:42:23
Angela Claridge - 2:42:23
Mrs Claridge can you answer that about the political balance?I can thank you chair.
So this is a politically balanced committee so you cannot substitute from another party.
I absolutely endorse though members need to be trained so that they are able to step in
and that you can have a sub from your own party if needed.
And as Harrison's already outlined,
we can work on expanding that further
so that any members who've missed it,
we can ensure that they are trained.
Okay.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:42:55
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:42:55
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:43:06
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:43:06
It's certainly something we can look into. I know some guy did it a number of years ago,quite a while ago when I first started here. We did a parish training session. It's certainly
Certainly something we can look into, yes.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:43:23
Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:43:23
Okay, I think that's brought us swiftly to the end of the meeting.So the next meeting is Wednesday the 9th.
I don't think there's a training session beforehand, is there?
So I'll see you at 2 o 'clock on Wednesday the 9th of July.
Meeting finished.
- Minutes , 14/05/2025 Planning and Licensing Committee, opens in new tab
- Planning & Licensing Committee - 11 June 2025 - Index of Applications, opens in new tab
- Planning & Licensing Committee - 11 June 2025 - Additional Pages, opens in new tab
- Planning Licensing Committee - 11 June 2025 - Additional Pages Update 2, opens in new tab
- 24.02854.OUT - Case Officer Report, opens in new tab
- 1 - 24.02854.OUT - Site Location Plan, opens in new tab
- 2 - 24.02854.OUT - Alternative Illustrative Masterplan, opens in new tab
- 3 - 24.02854.OUT - Site Access Priority Junction (Appendix E), opens in new tab
- 4 - 24.02854.OUT - Cycle Route Details - Route 1, opens in new tab
- 5 - 24.02854.OUT - Cycle Route Details - Route 2, opens in new tab
- 6 - 24.02854.OUT - Cycle Link Initial Concept, opens in new tab
- 7 - 24.02854.OUT - Parish Council Comment, opens in new tab
- 24.03111.FUL - Case Officer Report, opens in new tab
- 1 - 24.03111.FUL - Site Location Plan, opens in new tab
- 2 - 24.03111.FUL - Site Plan & Site Sections, opens in new tab
- 3 - 24.03111.FUL - Design Scheme, opens in new tab
- 25.00045.FUL - Case Officer Report, opens in new tab
- 1 - 25.00045.FUL - Existing Location & Site Plans, opens in new tab
- 2 - 25.00045.FUL - Proposed Location & Site Plans, opens in new tab
- 3 - 25.00045.FUL - Existing Site Sections, opens in new tab
- 4 - 25.00045.FUL - Proposed Site Sections, opens in new tab
- 5 - 25.00045.FUL - Proposed Floor Plan & Elevations, opens in new tab
- 6 - 25.00045.FUL - Proposed Road Highway Views, opens in new tab
- 7 - 25.00045.FUL - Detailed Planting Plan, opens in new tab
- 21.01892.FUL - Case Officer Report, opens in new tab
- 1 - 21.01892.FUL - Site Location Plan, opens in new tab
- 2 - 21.01892.FUL - Existing Site Plan, opens in new tab
- 3 - 21.01892.FUL - Proposed Site Plan, opens in new tab
- 4 - 21.01892.FUL - Ground Floor Plan, opens in new tab
- 5 - 21.01892.FUL - Front Elevation (South East), opens in new tab
- 6 - 21.01892.FUL - Rear Elevation (North West), opens in new tab
- 7 - 21.01892.FUL - Side Elevation (South West), opens in new tab
- 8 - 21.01892.FUL - Side Elevation (North East), opens in new tab
- 9 - 21.01892.FUL - Photographs, opens in new tab
There are currently no votes to display