Planning and Licensing Committee - Wednesday 9 July 2025, 2:00pm

Planning and Licensing Committee
Wednesday, 9th July 2025 at 2:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill

1 Apologies

Share this agenda point

Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Michael Vann
Councillor Andrew Maclean
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Nick Bridges
Councillor Tristan Wilkinson
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Officer
Officer
Officer
Officer
Leonie Woodward, Legal Services

2 Substitute Members

Share this agenda point

3 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill

4 Minutes

Share this agenda point

Minutes , 11/06/2025 Planning and Licensing Committee

04. Minutes of the meeting 11 June 2025
Status: In progress
Councillor Michael Vann
Councillor Tristan Wilkinson
Councillor Nick Bridges
Councillor Dilys Neill
04. Minutes of the meeting 11 June 2025
Status: Ended

Schedule of Applications

Share this agenda point

6 Public questions

Share this agenda point

7 Member questions

Share this agenda point

Schedule of Applications

Share this agenda point

8 24/03501/OUT - Land North of The Wern, Lechlade

Share this agenda point

Officer
Officer
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Town/Parish Council
Councillor Dilys Neill
Objector
Councillor Dilys Neill
Julia Gibson, Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Andrew Maclean
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Tristan Wilkinson
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Andrew Maclean
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Dilys Neill
08. 24/03501/OUT - Land north of The Wern - Refuse
Status: In progress
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
08. 24/03501/OUT - Land north of The Wern - Refuse
Status: Ended
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill

9 25/00650/FUL - Land at Nos. 26 To 48 Austin Road Cirencester

Share this agenda point

Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Applicant/Agent
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Nick Bridges
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Andrew Maclean
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Andrew Maclean
Councillor Dilys Neill
09. 25/00650/FUL - Land at 26-48 Austin Road - Permit subject to conditions and S106
Status: In progress
09. 25/00650/FUL - Land at 26-48 Austin Road - Permit subject to conditions and S106
Status: Ended
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill

10 24/03111/FUL - The Saddlery, Kineton, Guiting Power

Share this agenda point

Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Town/Parish Council
Councillor Dilys Neill
Town/Parish Council
Councillor Dilys Neill
Applicant/Agent
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
Ward Member
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Michael Vann
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Andrew Maclean
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Officer
Officer
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Andrew Maclean
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Andrew Maclean
Officer
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Ian Watson
Councillor Tristan Wilkinson
Councillor Ray Brassington
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Andrew Maclean
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Dilys Neill
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Daryl Corps
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Julia Judd
Officer
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Dilys Neill
10. 24/03111/FUL - The Saddlery, Kineton - Refuse against Officer Recommendation
Status: In progress
10. 24/03111/FUL - The Saddlery, Kineton - Refuse against Officer Recommendation
Status: Ended

10 24/03111/FUL - The Saddlery, Kineton, Guiting Power

Share this agenda point

Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill

11 25/01020/FUL - Duchy Home Farm, Tetbury

Share this agenda point

Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Applicant/Agent
Councillor Dilys Neill
Julia Gibson, Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Dilys Neill
11. 25/01020/FUL - Duchy Home Farm - Permit
Status: In progress
11. 25/01020/FUL - Duchy Home Farm - Permit
Status: Ended
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Officer
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Ray Brassington
Officer
Councillor Ray Brassington
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor David Fowles
Councillor David Fowles
12. 25/01049/FUL - Compton Farm, Compton Abdale - Permit
Status: In progress
Councillor Dilys Neill
12. 25/01049/FUL - Compton Farm, Compton Abdale - Permit
Status: Ended
Harrison Bowley, Planning

12 25/01049/FUL - Compton Farm, Compton Abdale

Share this agenda point

13 National Scheme of Delegation

Share this agenda point

Councillor Michael Vann
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Ray Brassington
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Andrew Maclean
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Nick Bridges
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Harrison Bowley, Planning
Councillor Patrick Coleman
Councillor Dilys Neill
13. To delegate authority to the Head of Planning following Member Feedback
Status: In progress
13. To delegate authority to the Head of Planning following Member Feedback
Status: Ended
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Julia Judd
Councillor Dilys Neill
Councillor Julia Judd
Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

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 - 0:00:06

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:00:07

That's better. Second mistake. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for attending this

meeting of the planning committee of Cotswold District Council, Planning and Licensing Committee

of Cotswold District Council. Welcome to anyone who's watching us at home. My name is Delis

I'm going to ask if we have any apologies.

1 Apologies

No apologies, so no substitutions.

In that case, I will go on and ask each member

to introduce themselves.

Before I do that, can I ask you, members,

if you can turn your names around so that they're facing

the camera so that anyone watching at home

can see who you are.

Very important.

Thank you.

Great.

So starting with Councillor Watson.

just came up on the screen.

Oh yes they do.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:01:03

I thought that's why we turned you around.

Yes, no I'd forgotten about that.

I need to remember who I am.

Yes, yes, yes, that is a crucial thing.

Okay, thanks.

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:01:17

Councillor Ian Watson, Tepry Town Ward,

Vice Chair of this Planning Committee.

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:01:33

Good afternoon, I'm Darryl Core and I'm the District Councillor for Moreton and Marsh

West in the North Coast Force. Michael Van, Fairford North.

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:01:41

Councillor Andrew Maclean - 0:01:43

Good afternoon, Andrew McLean from the Rissingtons.

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:01:49

Good afternoon, I'm Julia Judd, I'm in Ward.

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:01:54

Ray Brussons, I'm from Syrenchester.

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:02:00

Nick Bridges, Watermore, Syrenchester.

Councillor Tristan Wilkinson - 0:02:05

Hello, Tristan, Kemptsford, Lechlade and Fairford.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:02:12

Good afternoon, I'm Councillor Patrick Coleman from the village of Stratton in the town of

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:02:20

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:02:20

Sirencester. Thank you very much and now can I ask officers

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:02:21

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:02:24

to introduce themselves. I'm Harrison Burley, I'm the head of planning

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:02:26

services for the Cotswold District Council. Martin Perks, principal planning officer.

Officer - 0:02:32

Officer - 0:02:36

destination conservation and design officer Danielle Berry natural built in

Officer - 0:02:41

Officer - 0:02:45

historic environment manager Helen Cooper senior planning officer

2 Substitute Members

3 Declarations of Interest

Leonie Woodward, Legal Services - 0:02:53

Thank you very much.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:03:05

Now I have to ask, are there any declarations of interests from members on any items of

the agenda?

Councillor Fouts.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:03:17

The first item, the Councillor Steve Trotter is a former Councillor of Cotswold District Council and also a member of the Conservatives.

And therefore I have no pecuniary or other interest but I just know him and I thought I ought to make that clear.

It's also very nice to see him. Sadly not on these seats.

Is that okay?

Okay.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:03:45

Do any officers have any declarations of interest?

Thank you very much.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:03:53

In that case, should we go through to the minutes?

4 Minutes

I notice on the minutes that Councillor Michael van is recorded as being here twice.

Perhaps it was you and your doppelganger, Councillor van.

but apart from that I didn't find anything else on the minutes. Has anyone

else found any errors or things that they would like to change on the minutes?

Okay thank you Councillor Brassington and Councillor Fowls

seconding. Now can we take a vote on that then?

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:04:31

Councillor Tristan Wilkinson - 0:04:32

The minutes are accepted.

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:04:43

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:46

Back to the chair's announcement.

We have quite a full agenda this afternoon.

Can I remind members to be brief and to the point?

Schedule of Applications

If somebody else has already said something that you were planning to say, perhaps you

would avoid saying it again.

Can you remember to switch your microphone on when you're

speaking and switch it off again when you stop speaking

so that you can be seen on the camera?

We will be taking all the votes on the applications

by electronic means, so people at home will be able

to see how the vote goes.

If there is an unfortunate incident and the electronic

voting system stops working, we'll then revert to a show of

hands as in former times.

And then finally, if we get to two hours into the meeting,

we will pause for a 10 -minute comfort break.

Now, are there any public questions?

Do any of the members of the public have a question that

they'd like to bring forward?

Are there any members questions?

6 Public questions

7 Member questions

Schedule of Applications

In that case, just before we move on to the schedule of applications, I would like to

thank everybody who has come here to talk on behalf of one of the applications.

Representatives from your town and parish councils, supporters, objectors, agents.

You each have three minutes to speak when you're called forward.

So please, whatever you have to say, put the most important things first if you can do that.

I will let you finish your sentence, but we won't let you go on for four minutes or so.

So please be just prepared for that if you're speaking.

The ward members have five minutes to speak.

A couple of the ward members are not able to be here today,

and so our Democratic Services Officer will read

out their statements.

Okay, so now we move on to our schedule of applications.

And the first one is for a residential development of up

to 54 residential dwellings, class C3Us,

with highway access from the Wern

and associated landscaping, earthworks,

parking, engineering works and infrastructure.

All matters reserved except for the access junction

from the Wern at land north of the Wern,

Lechlade, Gloucestershire.

The applicant is Hallam Land.

The case officer is Martin Perks.

The ward members are Councillor Helene Mansila

and Councillors Tristan Wilkinson.

and the recommendation is to refuse.

8 24/03501/OUT - Land North of The Wern, Lechlade

So can I ask the case officer, Mr. Pex, to give a report?

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Officer - 0:07:56

Just to say there's one update.

It was just, as I mentioned in the additional pages,

we received some additional biodiversity,

biodiversity net gain information at the beginning

of the week on Monday.

The biodiversity section officer has been looking at that since.

This is quite a lot of information, but Dan is here today, so it may be easier to provide

an update where we are with that particular information and where we stand with guiding

biodiversity.

Thank you, Martin.

Yeah, so at present, the recommendation is still for refusal.

Officer - 0:08:25

As just a few examples, they still haven't provided enough information to address protected

species and there's not enough information to determine an accurate baseline for BNG,

So both of those refusal reasons are still recommended.

Thank you.

Officer - 0:08:46

I'll go on to the presentation if everybody's happy with that.

The application site's located on the western side of the town of Latchlade, an existing agricultural field adjacent to the town's development boundary, highlighted in the red dot.

The application site outlined in red.

Conservation areas in green.

The list of buildings are in orange and the ancient monuments in brown to the north.

Butler's Court which is referred to in the report is to the east.

It's the orange building outside the conservation area but adjacent to the application site.

This is the local plan extract which shows the extent of the town's development boundary.

The area to the north in yellow is the allocated employment site and the area to the south

in brown of the application site is the allocated residential site which is shown for nine dwellings

in the local plan.

These are the sites, this is looking for the mini roundabout to the north, northeast.

The land to the right is beyond the Wurrne road sign and advertising cording is the allocated

site in the local plan.

The application site is further, if you look beyond the lamppost and that sign in the distance,

it's in that location.

And again, looking at the application site from its southwest corner, looking across

the application site towards Butler's Court and the landscaping that offers that listed

building.

Looking eastwards along the WIR and this is the road that extends along the southern boundary

the application site and leads to existing housing and towards the conservation area.

And this is looking from the word northwards across the application site as it stands at

the moment.

Well, as it stood last year, sorry, on Google.

This plan provided by the applicant, which is in your schedule, again showing the application

site.

The purple area is the allocated employment site.

The hashed yellow area is the allocated residential site.

This shows the extent of the proposed road works at the end of the WIRN.

Again slight improvements to the mini roundabout or the roundabout on the A road to the south.

The main changes will be to the junction of the WIRN where it joins the existing road.

Indicative plan was provided by the applicant as part of the design and access statement

that gives you a clearer idea of how the 54 houses would potentially be laid out.

Clearly this is illustrative and not fixed.

But it gives you an idea of the level of development that would need to be included or incorporated

onto the site.

Again, it highlights the issue with the level of development along the western side of Butler's

Court site and closing off of the current countryside with Butler's Court to the west.

This is Butler's Court.

Very two listed building.

And again, out building within the site.

This is a site plan historic map, 19th century showing Butler's Court as it originally was

before the previous development.

Clearly it's evident that housing development is extended to the south and to the east,

but the western area has remained open and that's the bit that will potentially be lost

as a result of this development.

And this is the photographs that were provided by local residents last December during the

flooding events which were mentioned in the report.

It just highlights the flooding issues that did arise last year.

Most of the issues have arisen following additional survey investigations that highlight blocked

culvert and blocked drain.

So that's the main issues for the flooding.

This relates to the allocated site to the south of the current application site.

We received an application last year for 15 houses on that site.

And it was refused because of harm to the open space and the setting of the conservation

area and the approach into the town.

So we have previously expressed concern about development to the south of the current application

site due to the potential impact that would have.

So like I say, the allocated site is indicated guide of about nine houses.

So the attention of that site allocation was to still retain a very open and green entrance

to the settlement which we felt was lost by that development and we also would feel would

be lost by the current proposal as well.

So thank you very much.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:13:28

Thank you. Have you all had a chance to just look at the very brief update on the additional

papers? Good. In that case, can I call forward the public speakers, Councillor Steve Trotter,

on behalf of Lechelead Parish Council,

are you a parish council or a town council?

Do you consider yourself a town or a parish?

Town, great, sorry.

And the objector, Alan Kitchen.

Thank you.

Alan, you're on.

You've done this for three minutes here.

Councillor Trotta, you've got three minutes to speak.

Town/Parish Council - 0:14:30

I'm Steve Trotta, Mayor of Ledgelade and author of the Ledgelade Neighbourhood Plan.

Ledgelade is the smallest principal settlement in the district. Its infrastructure and services

are not designed to support significant development and expansion of population. This is recognised

through the local plan strategy which allocated only small development sites in the local

plan and promised also community infrastructure.

One such site, in yellow on the map there, is within the Lechele Development Boundary

is a key gateway site under the control of the same landowner for this application which

has not yet been built.

What's the point of creating a local plan with site allocations if those sites are not

developed in favour of speculative applications like this in the countryside.

Instead, Lech -Leid is dealing with the fourth similar application for development of this

site, which is a sensitive location in the countryside outside the Lech -Leid development

boundary.

This is a site which raises significant landscape, ecological, heritage and drainage concerns.

The first application of the site was withdrawn just as the officer's refusal was about

be published. The next two applications were then refused, as is the officer's recommendation

for this repeated application. The legislative town council, Fairford town council, Kempsing

parish council and around 100 residents have submitted sustained and consistent objections

to this development of this field for many reasons set out in the report. Clear principles

will be established by the three previous decisions to refuse planning permission for

similar development on this field.

We acknowledge the new housing and land supply situation

and the triggering of greater consideration given

to the supply of housing and development proposals,

but we will stress that the NPPF is clear

that permission can be refused where the impact

significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits

when all the policies of the NPPF are considered.

In short, the presumption in favor of new housing development

is not a blank check.

As repeated applications have been submitted, most community infrastructure benefits, such

as pedestrian route from the town centre and cycleway, have been removed because of its

impacts.

So this application retains almost no community benefits but would have significant local

infrastructure impact.

The officers set out, after a long consideration, a very comprehensive set of reasons for refusal,

include significant encroachment of residential development in the European countryside.

The site lies within the setting of a Grade 2 listed butler's court.

The site lies within the setting of the designated Literally Conservation Area.

And the Office has outlined all the policies which this conflicts with.

There are biodiversity gain concerns, flooding concerns,

all to remain after the devastating flooding, which we saw,

of the surrounding Downington area last December.

Thank you very much.

I'm just, last sentence.

Last sentence is fine.

Please support your senior officers

carefully considered refusal recommendation

and we can then retain most of the policies

in our local plan and the neighbourhood plan

and move forward to update them

rather than creating opportunities

for unsuitable speculative development

throughout the Cotswolds.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Back to the kitchen.

Sure.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:17:55

Objector - 0:17:56

Good afternoon. My name is Alec Kitchen. I have lived in Letchlade for many years and

I also live in a listed building close to the development, not the big one you just

saw. I object for the following eight reasons. Number one, the application, as Steve has

said, would break the limit of housing allocation in the Letchlade neighbourhood plan 2016 -2031,

which was written by the town council, endorsed by the community after consultation and endorsed

adopted by CDC. Breaking the provisions of the neighbourhood plan is a big deal.

What is the point of such a plan if it can simply be ignored and breaking it would lead to more and

more applications to build over the greenfields around the town with developments the town is

not able to support. Item 2, CDC's own 2021 Strategic Housing and Land Availability Assessment

clearly laid address to the need to retain the rural aspects of the western approaches.

If you have the time to read it, it's pages 17 and 18.

Point 3, Lechlade is a town of modest size with existing problems on traffic management

and congestion and an existing overload on parking, schooling and healthcare.

There is no secondary school, no railway station, no major employer.

More houses would meet more people, more cars, more congestion as they travel to and from

school and work which could overload a town already struggling to service its existing

population.

That is why the Lecce Lane Development Plan calls for more investment in infrastructure

before more houses.

Item 4.

More buildings with the associated burn -off from roofs and roads on the Thames floodplain

in a time of climate change, with any mitigation based on historic records and not future uncertainty,

poses a huge risk to the whole community.

I have read the Flood Report, but with my own eyes, I saw the A Road by the roundabout

totally impassable due to flooding last winter, as you just saw.

Point five. I have read the ecological impact report, all 79 pages of it.

All very worthy, but I also met and talked with two, the two men and a digger,

the landowner or Hallam, I don't know which, sent into this very field within the last six months

with a bulldozer who took out a protected habitat and to the best of my knowledge,

There's a criminal proceeding being undertaken about that bulldozing of what was meant to

be protected.

Point six.

I'm aware the landowner, as you've just heard, has permission to develop an adjacent

field and the abandoned Farmyard Abundance Court for many, many years and has made no

effort to develop what it already has permission to develop, but instead seeks wider permission

to build on a larger scale.

Why doesn't the landowner develop the areas where permission has already been given?

it would seem a question of profit rather than community benefit.

Point 7. I note with concern that the development plan is all matters reserved,

which means there is no actual detail on the housing density, parking allocation and style of the buildings.

It seems the proposal is asking for an in principle green light,

or for a large and impactful development with absolutely no detail or clarity on what the development would be like when completed.

My final point 8, this proposal is identical to the one made previously and the one before that which was rejected

and I note with some cynicism that this time around the deadline for objection was set as Christmas Day.

Are you finished? Thank you very much.

I have finished.

Oh wonderful, great, thank you very much.

Thank you, would you like to introduce yourself?

Sure.

Thank you.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:21:15

Can I ask our democratic services officer to read out a statement from Councillor Mansour

who is one of the ward members.

Did you want to say anything as well?

Thank you.

Chair, members of the planning committee, thank you for the opportunity to address you

Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:21:37

today.

I speak today on behalf of many Letchlade residents and in full support of Letchlade

Town Council who strongly object to this application and crucially in full agreement with CDC's

expert planning officers professional recommendation to refuse this application.

This application appears fundamentally to be incompatible with the adopted Cotswold

District Local Plan and with Letchlade's neighbourhood plan.

It seems to propose a major housing development on a greenfield site outside the settlements boundary with no allocation

demonstrative local need and no overriding justification

The expert planning officers report is clear and measured it concludes that this proposal conflicts with policies

DS 2 for s 6 and h 1 of the Cotswold District local plan

It further finds that this scheme undermines the Lechelade

neighborhood plan, particularly policy H2, which clearly sets

out where development may be acceptable.

The report also identifies that this major development would

cause unjustified harm to the rural landscape, erode the

setting of heritage assets, and fails to demonstrate the

necessity biodiversity net gain.

Even under the updated NPPF, CDC's experts concludes that the

significantly and demonstrably outweighs the claimed benefits and

advises that paragraph 11 of the framework does not override this outcome.

Most crucially this proposal has already been the subject of previous refusals

including application 23 slash 02917 slash out which this council refused

just months ago. The applicant has not in experts view addressed the reasons for

this refusal. There remain concerns relating to landscape impact, harm to heritage assets

and limited integration with the existing town. Moreover, new issues have emerged, notably

flood risk and without a secured section 106 agreement, any potential benefits remain unconfirmed

at this stage. If we are serious about climate resilience and responsible planning, we cannot

overlook these risks.

Let me say this clearly.

In my view, planning is not about numbers on the map,

but to build lasting communities.

The purpose of planning, as reflected in the Town and

Country Planning Act and National Policy,

is to support long -term sustainability.

In my view, this proposal does not meet this objective.

What is before you today appears to be, in essence,

a repetition of an already refused scheme,

now with unresolved issues and additional concerns.

In my opinion, it is not enough to present 15, 54,

or 110 houses on a map.

This scheme appears not to meaningfully integrate

with Lechelade, seems to lack safe and direct connectivity,

may place further strain on infrastructure, and as yet,

offers no compelling public interest justification

for breaching settled planning policy.

On the basis of adopted policies and the expert officer's report,

it would appear that there is no planning justification

to override the established framework

or to risk undermining public confidence in this process

for what appears to be a speculative development

that may fail to meet community needs or policy tests.

Chairs, members, I respectfully urge you

to uphold CDC's expert officer's professional assessment

to respect CDC's own policies and previous decisions, and to protect the

integrity of the planning system. In my view, refusal is not only justified, it is

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:25:36

necessary. Thank you, Councillor Mancellar. Thank you very much. Now we'll move on to

Members, questions?

Okay, have you written all those people down?

Councilor Fowles.

Councilor Fowles first.

Well, just like some clarification,

given how the officer's recommendation is refusal

and it's very, very, expresses himself extremely well

in item 11 and then the reasons 12 and the town council,

it seems to be contrary to everything.

And if I note, it's here because the application has been referred to Planning and Licensing

Committee as it is classed as a major development application.

So it seems so clear cut.

I'm a bit surprised we, well I would actually just like to recommend the officer's recommendation

to refuse.

I think we're wasting an awful lot of people's time.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:26:28

Do you have a question?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:26:31

Do I have a seconder?

Councillor David Fowles - 0:26:32

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:26:34

We're on comments at the moment, Councillor Foulton.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:26:40

Why is it here if it's so clear? If it's so clearly against all our

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:26:42

policies? Or is it just a formality?

Our head of planning will explain or Mr Paxil will explain.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:26:52

The council's constitution which was updated last year, I believe it was September or November or October, effectively requires all major housing developments, that's 10 or more dwellings to come to the planning committee.

Councillor Coleman.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:27:07

Chair, thank you very much. Yes, I wanted to phrase that issue in a

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:27:11

slightly different way.

We have five items on our agenda today and three of them would not have been on our agenda until that changed the Constitution.

I'm not saying it was wrong to make that change because it's important to try out new things, but my question is really to

primarily to

head of planning but also to the chair and vice chair of the committee. Would you undertake to review the current

arrangements for definition of major developments that must come before this

committee because in the cases where you know of the other two there are no

objections and we would not in the past have had those because just had large

barns simply put and we in the past have allowed refusals to go ahead and indeed

the previous refusal of this site was not one that came to committee because

it happened before the changes to the Constitution so very long way windy

saying I think this is would you agree it's an opportune moment to review those

changes that were made little over a year ago we're certainly happy to take

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:28:11

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:28:12

that on board it would have to go through a formal process to update the

Constitution but if members have an appetite for that is certainly something

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:28:18

we could look into we will of course at the end of this meeting also be looking

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:28:23

at the the technical consultation on the reform of planning committees so that

might be something which we're going to address.

Councillor Braslington. Thank you chair. Thank you Marty. Very good

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:28:36

report, very

comprehensive as usual. Page 63 design it says the density is very high. What is

the density for the site or what density do we consider unacceptable?

Officer - 0:28:55

I mean, I think density can sometimes get a little misleading

because in terms of just looking on numbers and it because

clearly the type of houses can vary.

You can have one bedroom houses or five bedroom houses and

it's you know, it's a very different type of thing.

So I think the issue here is that it's well over 20 in terms

of the numbers per hectare which for an edge of rural settlement is relatively high.

But notwithstanding that, we're taking into account what has been allowed or agreed on

the allocated site to the south which indicates a level of nine on a site that's just over

half the size of this one.

So I think when we're looking at numbers and things like that, we're looking at the density

that potentially would fit onto this site in relation to the context of the edge of

settlement and what's been put forward is acceptable potentially on the allocated site

to the south and if you're going from nine on just over half the size of the site to

the south and then to 54 you're looking at quite a significant increase in the number

of built units on that particular site especially given this site directly borders the list

of building.

So I don't want to get fixated on terms of actual numbers or densities and saying 15

per hectare is okay because I don't think it's that simple.

I think we have to look at each site in particular merits and how it relates to a particular

context.

But when you compare the numbers proposed on this site compared to the allocated one,

which has been as a result of discussion and a local plan process which determined that

nine was appropriate to ensure there's a lot of green infrastructure and a lot of open

space on that site, we don't think that could be achieved on this particular site given

the numbers now proposed regardless of how you kind of dealt with those 54 units.

So if that's a bit convoluted, sorry, but hopefully that tries to explain it.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:30:47

Thank you. The next paragraph refers to revised layout.

How much do we take that into consideration because it's an outline application so there is no submitted layout?

Officer - 0:30:58

No, we asked for an indicative layout to be provided.

Initially it just came in with the orange area on the plan that showed where the housing would go.

So we asked for a bit more detail and that's what came in with the indicative plan that I showed earlier.

Just to get a feel for how the housing would fit onto the site and how it would relate to the listed building and the countryside.

So that's helped us inform us in terms of the way we view the site and how it relates to the listed building.

I mean Justin may be able to comment more on that relationship but yes, that's the issue.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:31:32

And also the site, part of it is in flood zone 3. How much of the site is in zone 3?

Officer - 0:31:39

The residential area isn't. There's some flood zone 3 that extends along the western edge of that main part of the application site.

As you saw earlier, there's a strip of land at the south west next to the roundabout which is a hangover from previous applications and that's partly in flood zone 3.

So that's the bit, but that's not to be built on.

So none of the housing will go on flood zones.

Last question, Chair.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:32:04

Judging to the site, we've got allocated employment land.

What is the use class for that land?

Officer - 0:32:13

The allocation in Local Plans B1, which is now plus EG,

but that's the type of uses that can normally co -exist

with residential properties in close proximity.

So it's not allocated for general industrial warehousing

and that type of thing.

So the type of uses there are deemed to be ones that could be compatible with residential.

Officer - 0:32:42

In terms of the listed building, I think the concern is the underlying principle.

Butler's Court is a very high status farmhouse, almost verging on a small country house,

which originally had its own farmstead to the north, but otherwise it was pretty much out in

open countryside. In 2005 the development encroached unfortunately

onto the east of it right up almost to the main entrance actually which is

rather unfortunate and the farmstead is where the housing allocation is so that

is the west side is the only side where we still have a decent relationship

between this very significant listed building and open countryside. Also its

current approach is around the edge of the worm so currently its approach on

one side has the unbuilt development, not on the other side still has open countryside.

If this site were developed, we would be marooning this listed building in a sea of suburban

housing estates and the approach to it would actually be a road through a housing estate,

which would very significantly harm the setting of the listed building and arguably might

jeopardise its long -term future as a single dwelling, because it's a very large high -status

building which, if it's in the middle of a housing estate, might not be viable.

So that's a very serious concern.

Thank you very much, Councillor Judd.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:33:57

Thank you, Chair.

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:34:00

Following on from Councillor Coleman's comments, we can't change the constitution in the planning

committee now.

And also thinking about Councillor Fowls' points, from a brief check, this application

applies in the face of at least eight policies, including the neighbourhood development plan.

The case officer's recommendation is to refuse.

It doesn't have the support of the local town or parish council.

And there doesn't seem to be anyone here actually to support it at all.

And I just wondered if we can't just go straight to comments.

Councillor McLean wants to ask a question and then we will immediately go to comments

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:34:48

unless anyone else has a burning question.

Councillor Andrew Maclean - 0:34:53

It's just a very quick one about the traffic movements associated with this because it's

the complete opposite end to the school in Lechlade and yet only 27 vehicle movements

are sort of predicted and there's not going to be any cycle provision into Lechlade anymore

and very little footpath provision from what I can see.

Do we not think there will be a lot more impact from people

moving around in their cars?

Because I can't see any way in or out of this site other than

by getting in your car and going somewhere.

Officer - 0:35:26

The applicant was requested to do additional movement studies

in terms of routes into the town centre and those facilities,

looking at various options, and there was three or four options.

You could walk down the main road or through various estates to get to the town centre.

So highways have looked at that and they are agreeable.

They have agreed the traffic movement data is acceptable.

So highways are accepting that in terms of accessibility and of the location and its

proximity, it does afford reasonable access for pedestrians and cyclists to facilities

within the town.

Clearly whether people choose to use that or not is a matter for them.

But ultimately, the distances involved, about a kilometre, aren't excessive in terms of

national guidance.

So from that point of view, and bearing in mind what the County Council highways have

advised, it's not considered to be an unsustainable location in terms of accessibility.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:36:25

If there are no more questions, we'll move on to comments.

Councillor Judd.

Can I propose that we support officers recommendation to refuse?

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:36:34

I think we will allow Councillor Fales who has already raised this.

Do you wish to second that?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:36:42

Councillor, the judge is proposing it.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:36:49

I do do a bit usurped.

I actually went straight in and said let's just refuse it.

You'll have to find a time between you.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:36:58

Can I just make a comment?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:36:59

Yes, of course you can.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:37:03

I'm currently a resident of Lech -Leh -Din and would totally endorse what has been said by the town council.

There are sites, there's a lot of work being put into that neighbourhood development plan

and it is a significant settlement, as he said.

It's the smallest of our principal settlements with some sites.

It's clipped there in black and white and why not just adhere to it?

I just think it's opportunistic and I think it's wholly wrong and I'm delighted that hopefully

we'll get full support from this committee to Councillor Judd's proposal.

Councillor Wilkinson.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:37:40

Councillor Tristan Wilkinson - 0:37:43

Thank you, Chair. I support everything that's been said so far. I would support as being

a new member on this particular committee that we do look at the constitution. This

feels like a flagrant abuse of everybody's time and the process. I would be in favour

of applications where there is a material change where there's been a rejection before.

This just feels like somebody just playing the game, playing the odds, just waiting for

us not to be paying attention and hopefully it slips through. Luckily there's a lot of

and the excellent work of Councillor so I would be in favour of us spending our

time on things where our intellect and energy needs to be really applied on

things that are kind of much more marginal than this which appears to me

to be pretty clear -cut.

Councillor McLean.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:38:38

Councillor McLean, did you?

Thank you. I agree now is not the time and place to debate

Councillor Andrew Maclean - 0:38:43

Constitution but we do have this planning forum which many of us here

believe has already pulled the teeth of our power on this committee by meaning

many applications don't come to us and other than the administration there are

people in this council who believe we already don't see enough so I think the

idea of taking major applications away from this committee would not be

something I support I think it is good that major applications do come here

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:39:15

because it gives us a chance to debate it thank you. Okay I don't I don't think

that we can discuss this issue here and now in the committee.

This isn't the appropriate forum, but we will,

as I said, towards the end, be looking at the reform

of planning committee's technical consultation.

And it may be, I think Councillor Braslington was going

to suggest a small working group outside of this group.

And this is the sort of thing that I feel that we could bring.

Would you agree, Councillor Braslington?

Yeah, great.

Good. Councillor Fowles,

have you got anything else to add?

I was just going to endorse totally

what Councillor McLean said.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:39:46

We're not used enough as a committee, but I think we're

being abused on this occasion.

So I'm delighted to see so many applications here, and I feel

so sorry that residents and the sound council have had to come

all this way.

You know, but it's great that you said, Chairman, that we've

got so many people here from members of the public, but it's

such a clear -cut one, as far as I'm concerned.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:40:11

Councillor Caul. I was just going to say perhaps it is a good

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:40:14

thing that we do get to see these applications for the third time. I mean maybe the developer

doesn't take rejection very easily but I think it's good to show that we are actually listening

to parish councils, listening to a brilliant report from an officer so clearly against

such an awful planning application. So I think it's a good thing that we are actually visible

and getting to see that we do not stand up

to this kind of development that doesn't even integrate

at all into a village like Leshlade.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:40:44

This is obviously an area for debate

outside this particular committee setting,

and I'm sure we can all take that forward.

So we've now got a proposal for a vote on the table

proposed by Councillor Judd and seconded by Councillor Fowle,

which is to accept the officer's recommendation to refuse.

So we'll go to the vote on that now.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:41:09

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:41:21

So, yes, so we've all agreed that unanimously to accept the officer's recommendation to refuse.

Councillor Watson there has something he'd like to say.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:41:35

I think Mr. Kitchen is with us.

I think that might be your watch on the desk at the front.

It is indeed.

I was going to make a comment but I didn't.

Thank you very much.

That's why it's so good.

And that's why I stuck to time.

Yeah, well done.

9 25/00650/FUL - Land at Nos. 26 To 48 Austin Road Cirencester

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:42:01

Councillor David Fowles - 0:42:02

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:42:06

Thank you very much. That application is refused. We are going to move on to the next application.

If you are members of the public, if you are leaving, could I ask you to leave quietly?

Thank you.

Our next application is demolition of 12 number of flats and construction of 12 number of

new houses and flats, together with associated car parking,

external works and landscaping at land at numbers 26

to 48 Austin Road, Syrensestor, Gloucestershire.

The applicant is Bromford Housing Association.

The case officer is Martin Perks.

The ward member is Councillor Bloomer.

And the recommendation is permit,

subject to no objection from Gloucestershire County Council

archaeology, as well as completion of a Section 106

agreement covering biodiversity net gain,

financial contribution towards Cotswold Beachwood's special

area of conservation, and the North Meadow and Clattinger

Farm's special area of conservation,

and the provision of affordable housing.

Again, we have something on our late papers,

which is a comment from Gloucestershire County Council archaeology. Have you all had a chance to look at that?

Thank you. Then in that case, can I ask Mr. Perks to present the update?

Officer - 0:43:56

it. Thank you, Chair. Yes, it's part of an existing

post -war housing development on the eastern side of Syr ancestor, just to the east of

the ring road. The application site is in red. The conservation area is the other side

of the dual carriageway and the ancient monument is in brown and listed building that goes

The Golden Farm public house is in orange just to the northwest of the application site.

Again, showing the application site in the existing building in relation to existing

housing.

Again, looking southwest across Austin Road.

So the building in question is the 1950s brick building at the end, which is to be demolished.

Currently contains 12 two -bedroom apartments.

That's from Queen Elizabeth road to the south looking at the rear of the existing building

through a gap in the trees.

The proposal is to direct a mixture of two bedroom, four bedroom dwellings and one bed

apartments.

Spread more across the site.

The central apartment building has eight apartments and similar height to the existing building

but would be shorter in length. The other elements on the site would be more traditional

dwellings with solar panels and roofs. Two beds and four bedroom properties.

Just to try to vote, this is the Austin roads next to Patterson road which in 2018 had permission

to demolish similar types of building and erect 36 new houses. That's developments been

undertaken now. It's just to give you an example of what was undertaken in the

nearby area and the top picture there is what Paterson Road looked like before in

2013 and how it looks presently. So again the area has been subject to similar

development in the past and improved the level of quality of accommodation in the

area. And just for clarification this is the Golden Farm listed building. The

application sites beyond the trees to the to the right so there's no real

direct visual connectivity between the two buildings.

And the current proposal is considered to be an enhancement

in design terms anyway.

So I have nothing further to say.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:46:25

So we have one speaker, Millie Nichols,

who is the agent.

So you have three minutes and we'll tell you when your three minutes is up but you'll just

be allowed to finish your sentence.

Applicant/Agent - 0:47:07

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

I'm Millie Nichols, Regen Project Manager for Bromford.

The existing block of flats at Austin Road

presents significant challenges that cannot be resolved

through refurbishment.

The layout of the flats fundamentally

fails to comply with current building regs,

and there is no reasonable way to modify the existing

structure to meet modern standards.

This leaves us with buildings that

are not fit for purpose in today's housing landscape.

We are concerned about the impact on our residents

and the wider community.

The scheme experiences exceptionally high levels of antisocial behavior and this

has placed enormous strain on our management resource and our neighborhood

coach has confirmed that 50 % of their time is consumed dealing with these

issues. This time would be better spent providing more support for local

residents and building positive community relationships. The built

environment itself is contributing to these problems. Residents have described

the external appearance as resembling a prison block.

This is not the kind of environment that anyone should call a home and certainly doesn't reflect

the standards we aspire to as a responsible housing provider.

The existing block of flats now requires significant financial investment just to maintain the

basic standards.

Our financial modelling system has confirmed that by continuing to spend money on the existing

structure it will not improve the scores on the home standards assessment

confirming our concerns about its viability. The letting data tells its own

story, properties are difficult to let, attracting very limited bids. Bronford

has successfully demolished identical blocks on nearby Paterson Road and

replaced them with new homes. This has generated a positive feedback from the

community and questions have been asked as to why Austin Road was not included.

Today's application addresses that concern.

Bromford flagship group are now one of the UK's largest

housing association and the third biggest builder

of affordable homes.

Our purpose is clear, to invest in homes and

relationships so people can thrive.

Our new homes will feature a fabric first approach to

design, maximizing solar gain and heat retention.

These incredibly well insulated new homes will

help residents thrive while keeping heating bills low,

a crucial consideration in this current climate.

Members should have no doubt that Bromford will deliver

100 percent of this scheme affordable.

We are financially strong partner to Homes England.

We continue to strive to deliver more affordable

homes in the Cotswold area.

We have already invested millions into a number of

regeneration projects in Syrinsester, South Cerny,

Morton and Marsh, and Stowe.

This application represents an opportunity to replace

failing accommodation with homes that meet modern standards, support

community well -being and provide our customers with the quality of life that

they deserve. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:50:13

Do we have anything from Councillor Bloomer? She's not here, is she?

No. In that case, we'll move on to members' questions.

No questions? Vote.

OK. Do we?

I wouldn't let the moment go past.

Councillor David Fowles - 0:50:42

It was great to hear such a positive statement from Millie.

I just wondered if we approved, if we support the osteoarthritis

how quickly this is going to take place.

It seems, it seems from what the residents are saying and from

what the agents said that it's not a very nice place to live.

Is it going to be quick?

Do we know timescales?

I mean I've dealt with Bronford on other sites.

Officer - 0:51:06

There's two, one in Stowe and one in Moreton in Marsh and the

has been actually surprisingly quick in both instances.

Although, I mean, you may be able to say

on Chamberlain Close.

Yes, yes, yes, from personal experience,

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:51:19

we had a similar situation at Chamberlain Close

in Star in the World, which was, yeah,

it came up, sprung out of the ground,

mushroomed out of the ground surprisingly quickly,

and it's much nicer than the original blocks.

And I'm sure you can recognize the same thing

that's happened in Morton, yeah.

Councillor Bridges.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:51:40

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:51:44

I know people who are sofa surfing

and staying with their parents.

I'm concerned that this development is too small.

You're only replacing 12 homes with 14 homes.

You could easily fit another eight,

another 16 single bed apartments in it.

Are we allowed to go back to Bromford and say, build more?

No.

We can only consider the application that's in front of us so if we

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:52:11

deem this to be acceptable

then there'd be no reason to refuse the application on those grounds.

So no, we have to make sure we're looking at this on a case -by -case basis based on the

information in front of us.

Anybody else?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:52:26

Councillor McLean, I think you wanted to say something.

Councillor Andrew Maclean - 0:52:30

Just whilst it seems brilliant to replace this non -functioning, very poorly environmentally

performing block with new ones that are going to be so much better. Do we have any provision

about the waste that's going to come out of knocking down an old house? Because that in

itself does have a carbon footprint. Have they made any statement about what happens to the

materials that come out? I'm not that concerned about this one. I just wondered in general

whether we have a policy around that, because we do need to both replace old stock with

better ones, but also upgrade. And I just wonder whether we have any policies that

deals with those issues. Thank you. This council doesn't. The County Council does

Officer - 0:53:10

have a waste minimization policy which deals with how materials are dealt with

and such like. The applicant does in terms of just means of demolition and

construction phase, set up, all that's going to be handled so it doesn't impact

on local residents. But there is also in terms of disposal of materials there's

other legislative, can't say the word, legislative regimes which

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:53:40

cover that so yeah. Councillor Coleman. Yes I couldn't see anything

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:53:43

chair so are

there any agreed limits on the working hours particularly during the demolition

and trucking away of the debris or would you be using a standard set of times and

You might tell me what those are.

The applicant has provided quite an extensive amount of information

Officer - 0:54:07

regarding dust management

and construction management.

It's all in those reports.

I can't tell unfortunately off the top of my head what it is, unfortunately.

I'd have to go back through.

I mean it's the normal, usually it's the normal standard ones but you know from kind of 8

or six on weekdays and no working on Sundays

and things like that.

So that's the usual standard kind of procedure.

Any other questions?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:54:38

I just wanted to ask, are we working towards the completion

of the Section 106 legal agreement for the biodiversity

net gain, et cetera?

Officer - 0:54:51

Yeah, the legal office is just waiting for me to confirm it,

and then she'll be underway.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:54:56

We've got drafts, it just needs editing.

Officer - 0:54:57

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:54:59

So that's not going to hold up the completion. Great. So now we move on to comments.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:55:06

Yes, I'd like to move that we accept the officer's recommendation to commit with the additional condition that we have a construction management plan in place, submitted for our prior approval.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:55:22

Councillor Fels. Not for the first time I'd like to second Councillor

Councillor David Fowles - 0:55:26

Brassington's

proposal. So can I just say condition 10 I've been trying to check it out

development hereby permitted shall be undertaken fully in accordance with the

documents that title construction phase management plan so we have already had

Officer - 0:55:40

those documents. There's a dust mitigation plan and a site waste management plan as

well they've already all been provided so by the applicant so we and there's a

condition saying in accordance with those details the applicant has set out

all that information already are you happy with those conditions thanks very

much a councillor Jed

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:56:04

Well, you got me back, David.

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:56:10

Councillor McLean.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:56:15

Just want to add an additional comment.

Councillor Andrew Maclean - 0:56:17

It was great that the applicant was informing us about the energy performance of these houses

being good.

And back to my old self, I always endorse applicants who give us that information.

And it's great that people on relatively lower incomes will have highly performing houses

is in the heart of our ancestors, so thoroughly support it too. Thank you.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:56:38

Thank you. I'm sure we would all agree with that comment. So if there are no further comments,

we'll move to the vote to accept the officer's recommendation to permit this application.

Oh, sorry. Councillor Fowls, did you have some? No? Okay. Thanks.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:57:57

I'm going to wait for Karen O 'Halloran to three way

inspection briefing to look at the subtlery in Kyneton to be prepared to

Give a short comment when we move on to this application after the officer's presentation

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:00:41

Thank you very much. Councillor Fowls has returned. We are now back to our full numbers.

10 24/03111/FUL - The Saddlery, Kineton, Guiting Power

Could I ask everyone to be quiet? Thank you very much. We are moving on to agenda item

number 10 which is an application for the removal of stables and erection of a dwelling

with associated works including parking, landscaping and new access at the Saddlery, Kyneton, Guiding

Power, Gloucestershire. The applicant is the President and Scholars of Corpus Christi College.

The case officer is Helen Cooper. The ward member is Councillor Len Wilkins. We discussed

this as you remember at our previous committee and resolved to defer it for a site inspection

briefing. So first of all we'll have the officer's update and later members who attended the

site inspections briefing will be able to offer their views.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Officer - 1:01:38

Yes, and we had a good turnout last week for the site

inspection briefing.

So thank you to everyone that kind of came along to have a

look at the site.

So we carried that out last Wednesday.

I'll run through the presentation again in brief just

to show you what we're looking at.

So firstly, it's set in the village of Kyneton.

And at present, it contains a stable block,

which is fairly modest in scale.

And whilst we don't have the existing drawings,

we do believe that the ridge height is approximately

three and a half meters tall.

And it's 16 meters, 16 and a half meters in length

and six meters in depth.

So this application seeks permission to remove

the stable block and to erect a dwelling with associated works,

including parking, landscaping, and a new access

is also proposed.

So the proposals generated local interest,

as outlined within the report, and Councillor

Wilkins has requested that the application is considered by planning

committee on grounds of the principle of development and also in respect to

design and impact upon the landscape and heritage assets and the potential impact

on biodiversity. So you can see the site here. There are agricultural buildings

kind of to the rear of the site to the south and then you've got cottages kind

of to the north. The site is set in the Cotswold National Landscape and there's

Also, you can see the red line on the aerial photograph

there that depicts the public right of way,

which is nearby.

In terms of principle, we consider Keintin

to be a non -principal settlement and policy DS3

of the local plan is applicable.

And this allows small scale residential development

such as that proposed by the application.

So during the application process,

we have received the revised drawing.

So if I can show you the layout,

So this was the original proposal and that was the original design.

So we have had discussions again internally with the conservation and design officer and the designers have evolved in response to that.

And so the current proposal, this is now the amended layout and that's the appearance of it.

So it's a three bedroom detached property.

It echoes the traditional barn conversion really on the site.

So one of the concerns that's been raised relates to the prominence of the site because

it's slightly elevated in the street scene as members would have seen last week.

So if I go through the photographs, here's the existing stable block and those are the

agricultural buildings to the rear and that's kind of a view across the site.

And that's the view from the public right -of -way,

which I've added since the last presentation.

And that just kind of like shows views to the site.

So you can see it's kind of like within the built -up area

of development.

And then this is the road going through Kyneton where the new

access would be proposed.

You can see on the top picture it would be just on the right

hand side there, a new access.

So the building would measure approximately eight meters

in height to the ridgeline however it does have relatively low eaves at

approximately 4 .2 meters in height and the cat's side roof is also proposed

on the west elevation and that's considered to help reduce the impact of

the building in relation to the views from the street scene and from the

public right -of -way and there are also no objections from highways or the

conservation and design officer in respect to the proposed new access or

design of the building. So on balance the design of the dwelling is considered

acceptable and it is considered to have a neutral impact upon

nearby heritage assets and the character of the landscape.

And also kind of neighbor amenity was also considered

to be acceptable.

We looked at that when we were out on site.

We have received a preliminary ecological appraisal which has

been reviewed in full and the biodiversity officer is happy

and has no objection.

The Arbora cultural officer also has no objection

to the proposal.

I think it results in the loss of one small tree but it's not

considered to be of value and it can be successfully mitigated for through the

landscape condition. So on balance proposals considered to comply with the

relevant local plan policies and it's been recommended for approval subject to

condition. So that concludes the presentation chair, thank you.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:06:01

Thank you very much. Can I now ask public speakers to come forward so we've got

Councilor Lisa Hanks from Temple Guiding Parish Council.

An objector, James Emtich.

And the agent, Mark Pettit.

So I'll invite you to speak in the order.

I've just called you up.

Just a reminder, you'll have three minutes to speak.

My timekeeper will tell me when you're up

and I shall cut you off, although I'll allow you to finish your sentence.

So can I ask Councillor Hanks?

Officer - 1:06:43

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:06:45

Oh, sorry, yeah, I'll call you up after the public speakers.

Officer - 1:06:50

Hello, I'm Lisa Hanks from Temple Guerting Parish Council.

Thank you for taking the time to visit Kynton last week and for bringing with you a much -needed

Town/Parish Council - 1:07:03

drop of rain. As you approach the site you will have noticed that it sits raised

around six, five, six feet above the road. I understand Morris gave you an

indication of the proposed ridge height and you'll have seen for yourselves how

beautifully maintained and cared for the plot is. This is not a brownfield site,

it's not an abandoned yard, it's not an unworkable infill plot, it's a love

space shaped over time by Morris and his family and made freely accessible to others to enjoy

the peace, the animals and the open air. That's why 74 % of the Hamlet took the time to find

your website and submit a formal objection. They're afraid of losing something more than

a piece of land. To be honest, I could end my statement there, but I understand that

the objections must also be framed in policy, even if the policies are shifting.

Still, the spirit of these policies surely remains. To protect the landscape, we're

lucky enough to call home, not as a museum, but as a working, evolving place. A place

shaped over generations by local materials, local skills and local knowledge. The proposed

Most development does not reflect that tradition. It's not long, low stone cottages. We must

ask, would those who lived and worked there before have built such a high hay barn up

a steep slope? With this orientation, how would the horses have pulled the hay up there?

If they wouldn't, doesn't that make this a pastiche? If our villages form a pearl necklace,

then surely no one wants to add a plastic bead.

We know the planning framework is evolving, but the intent behind Policy DS3 and the local

plan policies EN2, EN4, EN5 and EN10 are still highly relevant. They call for proportional,

respectful development. This proposal remains out of step in scale, in design and context.

We don't underestimate the burden you carry to find land for over a thousand homes each

year while still protecting our shared landscape. But today, one small hamlet is asking for

your help to protect a much loved and valued space and refuse this application. Thank you.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:09:37

Thank you very much. Now can I ask the objector to speak who is Mr Emtig.

Town/Parish Council - 1:09:50

My name is James Emtig, I'm a resident of the village. Thank you very much for hearing

me speak a second time round and thank you for visiting the stables last week. I hope

the visit showed you just how small the plot is and how large the proposed development

is by comparison. The proposed development stands nearly three times as high as the existing stables

and it's perched up on the bank and towers down onto the road and it will be the first building

that you see on the left -hand side as you enter this ancient end of the village. Its presence will

be made even more visible by the removal of the tree in the north eastern corner of the plot,

a tree which currently hides the stables from view and by its removal will leave nowhere for this new

builds to hide. So I ask you to consider whether this is the first impression that we want

the many visitors who come into this Cotswold village to have a towering new build that

juts out into their sightline from the road. It is proposed to sit in the middle of the

plot whereas the stables are lined on the edge of the plot. This will dominate the small

sites leaving little to no room for cars or garden. So I understand that there is a need

to build new homes. So if a new home must go on this site, I ask you to consider restricting

it to a bungalow the same height as the stables and positioning it on the same footprint as

the stables so that it is a replica of what is currently there rather than simply taking

its name and nothing else.

As for what is currently there, the stables have been rented from Corpus Christi College

by my parents for over 35 years and during that time they have had an open door policy

to anyone who wanted to come onto the yard to enjoy the facilities.

This has been hugely varied over the years, from people coming to ride the horses and

ponies to watching the ducks and chickens.

It has also been home to orphaned lambs who have been bottle fed and to miniature shetlands,

which toddlers and young children can climb on.

Many children, including some from Cheltenham and Gloucester who have intellectual disabilities

and special educational needs, have come to enjoy the stables over the years.

And to quote one parent, my children have been visiting the stables for years, benefiting

from the rural surroundings, the closeness to nature, especially the

horses and ducks, and a general countryside atmosphere. They feel safe

and happy there and this familiarity helps strengthen this. It's worth noting

that this has never been run as a commercial enterprise, this is just my

parents allowing anyone onto the yard to spend time with animals. Last time the

applicant made the case that this new house would benefit the community by

adding some more locals who would drink at the pub, but I ask you whether a couple

more points sold at an already busy pub is more beneficial to the community than the

last remaining active stable block that is used and loved by so many of the local community.

You have the opportunity now to support the future of genuine rural living that has an

outcome that benefits far more in the community than just the landlord of the pub.

Once community focused assets like this are gone, they are almost impossible to get back.

So I ask you to please consider where is the value to the community in swapping out this

much treasured stable yard for an out of character new build that will sit dominating its former

home. Many thanks for your time and consideration.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:12:57

Thank you very much. And now can I ask Mr Pettit, the agent, to speak.

Thank you, Chair, members of the committee. My name is Mark Pettit. I'm a Chartered Town

Applicant/Agent - 1:13:04

Planner and I prepared and submitted this planning application. Firstly, thank you for

the opportunity to address you again following the committee meeting last month and the subsequent

site inspection briefing last week. I hope members found the site inspection briefing

useful in terms of understanding the context within which the site sits. You will have

seen that this is a natural and logical infill plot within the built -up area of Kyneton.

It would deliver an additional dwelling on previously developed land at the time when

the council can only demonstrate 1 .8 years supply of housing land. As I outlined at the

previous committee meeting, we have worked with officers during the course of the application

to get the proposals in a position where the conservation officer now raises no objection.

In fact, none of the statutory consultees, apart from the parish council, object to the

scheme.

Whilst we appreciate that the new dwelling is larger than the existing stable block,

it is considered to be consistent with the prevailing grain and form of development in

this part of the village.

Indeed, the nearest property to the north, Green Bank Cottage, is two storeys in height,

slightly elevated from the road, and is not dissimilar in size and scale to the proposed

dwelling.

The scheme is also smaller than a number of nearby properties on the opposite side of

including Kyneton Place and Kyneton Farmhouse. 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 palette of local materials will ensure the

dwelling blends in successfully with the fabric of Kyneton. We hope the members

will support this application and in turn allow for the first new build

dwelling to be approved in Kyneton over the local plan period. In this respect

make a positive contribution to the vitality of this rural community. No

issues arise from a residential amenity point of view and there are no technical

reasons why this application should not be approved. The applicants are happy to

accept the suggested conditions including those relating to materials,

landscaping, tree protection, ecological enhancements and lighting. So in summary

the local plan allows small -scale residential development in Keinton and

the scheme would make more effective use of previously developed land at the time

of the council cannot currently demonstrate a five -year supply of

housing land. The design has been informed by pre -application consultation and positive

dialogue with the planning and conservation officers during the course of the application.

We strongly believe that the new house will sit comfortably in this location. It is of

a size and scale that would not be out of character with the local area and is arguably

an improvement on the existing situation. Whilst it is greater in size than the stables

it will be replacing, this does not raise any issues in respect of landscape impact,

residential amenity or conservation harm. Unlike the temple guiding scheme that was

refused a committee in December our clients proposals are for a modest

development on a site that's previously developed land outside a conservation

area on the footprint of an existing building and which has received no

objection from your conservation officer. In short this is an entirely

appropriate scheme for content which respects the sensitivities of the

site and surrounding area. So set against this backdrop it's respectfully

requested that planning permission be granted accordingly in line with your

office's recommendation. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Would you like to return

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:16:06

to your seats and can I ask Councillor Wilkins, do you want to come forward, Councillor Wilkins?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:16:17

As you know, you have five minutes.

Ward Member - 1:16:30

Thank you for what I have learnt by now. Good afternoon, members. Those of you who have

I've heard this before.

My apologies, those of you hearing it for the first time.

First of all, disagreement, Kaitin's not a village.

It's a hamlet.

There's only two things in Kaitin.

One's a pub.

One's a sadbury.

So if you're going to say yes to this development,

you're taking away half of Kaitin's amenities.

It's impossible to understand Kaitin unless you live there.

It's a small village, everybody knows everybody, and people want to have a nice quiet lifestyle

and you're going to possibly put something into this village which is totally out of

proportion and will dominate that part of the village.

It's on the high bank if you've heard, it's a prominent position and what worries us,

as I represent Kyneton, it could encourage development of the village at this site.

And please, we don't want that.

The building that you're looking at is overbearing in its outer character of the hamlet.

If you go there, you'll find most of the houses are very nice houses, brick built,

but there are no barns that have been developed.

The reason this really upsets me is there's such a big breach of

the Cotswolds National Landscape that this council

is so proud of.

It's our duty to conserve and enhance natural beauty.

You're going to take away a wooden stable.

You're going to take away the ability of children to come

and visit.

You're going to take away the ability of visitors,

of residents to go to the stables to learn to ride,

to look at the animals, to look at the biodiversity.

And it's really important to them.

This is a building that's two -thirds bigger than the

existing single -story wooden stable.

It's opposite a 700 -year -old listed building that's going to

be affected by this building who will lose their privacy.

And I'm very, very happy.

Now, EN1 says we expect any new development will promote

protection, conservation, and enhancement of the historical

nature, natural environment.

Well, those of you who went there,

do you really think it's going to do that?

I don't.

It's reverse.

You've got a new executive house where there was a stable that

was used and loved by the local residents.

There's a problem with light pollution.

There's a lot of glass in this new development.

We've got a problem with wildlife crossing the plot.

At the moment it does.

When we were there, the only people who were upset were the

ducks who had to move.

But there's lots of wildlife movements during the day and

especially in dusk in the evening.

And you're going to stop that.

They won't be able to cross like they do at the moment.

I don't think they're going to be very pleased.

It's a totally different than that for the building.

It doesn't look like the buildings that we're in

kind of at the moment.

It's going to take away national beauty.

And one of the things that worries me is the biological

biodiversity loss.

The loss of biodiversity is 57 .65 percent.

We're losing the tree, a pond, and two vital

environmental features.

Yes, there's going to be a replacement pond.

It's going to be a little paddling pool.

It won't be able to take the ducks who are there

at the moment.

EN10 says we want character, appearance,

and significance of designed assets.

Fine.

We are destroying assets.

We're destroying a wooden building that's been there

for years, which is loved by the residents,

used by children who have got needs and you're putting a what looks like a

rebuilt barn. You know, doesn't appeal to me but they're... MTFPS sections don't often

come up in this council meetings. This one does. This is a heritage asset and it

says that Kainton has got few local assets,

and it's one of the highest significance there.

And lastly, you saw the roads.

It's very narrow lanes.

Didn't we have fun parking, those of you who came on the

site visit?

Parking is very little existent.

Ms. O 'Brien You've had your five minutes.

You can wind up with your last sentence.

Mr. Smith Oh, have I?

Ms. O 'Brien You can wind up with your last sentence.

access to get into the site, which is going to mean you have to go slow and stop.

And whilst site is relatively quiet, it does have its moments during school during rush

hours.

Thank you.

Sorry, Chair.

No, that's fine.

You just about made it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, ladies.

Great.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:21:54

Now, can you raise your hand if you went on the site inspection briefing?

Oh lots of people.

Shall I...

Sorry I didn't write your name.

It was you.

Councillor Coore, Councillor van, Councillor McLean, Councillor Brasington.

Okay, great.

So, do you want to start us off with what your feelings were?

Thank you, Chair.

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:22:24

Yeah, I was, I've got to say it's a lovely part of the world.

I drove up from the south of the Cotswolds and it's a different landscape than the south of the Cotswolds.

The area itself was on, I would say, the edge of the village, on the road coming in.

On one side were the fields with a public footpath.

on the other side the village itself, the village, I guess the pub, the village center

and maybe I don't know 25, 30 houses.

The site itself is between some very tall farm buildings, which are slightly shielded from the road

by trees. They're not that obvious but they are 20, I guess maybe 20 meters high, something like that.

Then there's a space of land where the stable is and another house adjoining the land.

I feel that the space offers itself for a house or a dwelling.

From behind the house, I don't think it would disturb anybody's viewing,

and I don't see that it would overlook any other house or garden,

or would be overlooked by any other house.

The only other possibility was the house next door,

but that was shielded by two hedges which line the drive.

And I don't think that would influence.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Caul.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:24:15

Thank you.

Thank you, Helen.

It was a very interesting site visit.

Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:24:21

I think it's just invaluable that we all, the members of us

who were able to go did actually go.

I'm in Kyneton, I mean I lived in Longbough for many years so I'm very familiar with the

villages around the area in the North Cotswolds and Kyneton is just a classic Cotswold village.

When you arrive there you don't really realise you're in the village until you're there,

there are no big statement pieces announcing you've entered the village, it's just a lovely

saddle, it just creeps up on you, a village like Kyneton.

I think the current saddlery that we saw, when we looked around, we were able to also see the height of the existing building, the saddlery.

It's very subtle. It sort of sits into the natural landscape because it is an incline of a hill.

So that saddlery sits there very gently, shrouded by trees.

There is a footpath that we went and had a look at.

Council McLean was very good in his knowledge of walking around the area, so thank you.

And we were able to go up to the footpath and look back into Kyneton and the subtlety of the Cotswold Stone building nestling on that hillside.

They just felt, and they'd obviously been there for many, some hundreds of years, but there was a natural feeling of settling into the area.

And then obviously we were able to have a look at the scale of the proposed house on that site that did jar very much with the existing

saddlery. I realise it's not time for comments yet, is it, on the actual application, but on the site visit.

We were able to judge the scale of that building in that small space to the councillors who weren't able to attend.

And you could actually see how dramatic building it would be at the entrance point to this

very lovely, subtle North Cotswold village.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Fann.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:26:24

Yes, it's a beautiful little village.

Councillor Michael Vann - 1:26:25

And the question is, does this proposed structure extend the village or is it going to be within

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:26:42

it. That's for another stage. Thank you. Councillor McLean. It's the thing I picked

Councillor Andrew Maclean - 1:26:46

up was very much that the it's not a conversion of the stables but a

demolition of stables and a new build and it's one of the objectives called it

a pastiche. It's definitely a new build fake barn conversion because it's not a

barn that's been converted. It's built to look like a barn that's been converted and

and certainly it looks far better done than the one we rejected a few months ago at Temple Guiding just up the road

where they tempted to do it and they didn't look.

But nonetheless it was obvious that it was going to be a new build, fake barn conversion in the middle of this village.

So that's the first thing I noted.

The other thing I noted, which I know we're not allowed to consider in this application,

is that there were two very redundant looking modern farm buildings right next door to it.

And I can bet your bottom dollar that within a couple of years

those are going to come back to us for conversion because it's sort of setting a precedent for them.

I know I'm not allowed to say that but that was my impression from the site visit. Thank you.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:27:51

Thank you very much. Councillor Brassington. Yes, thank you.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:27:57

Approaching the village from the south like I did, the first thing you see on the left is two large

agricultural buildings, but they are set down a little bit.

Immediately past that, you come to a tree which actually shields this stables, so it's

quite hidden at the moment.

If a new build is going to be taller and it's going to move forward, so it would be more

prominent when you're entering the village from the south.

If you come in from the north at the moment, you look on the right and the barn is partly

not visible so well, it doesn't stand out because it's dark colour and you've got the

vegetation. If you put a much bigger building there in the house it would be much more prominent.

We also went up the footpath at the side for about 100 yards and looked back and again

the current building is not too visible but if you have a house there it will stand out

more. Thank you.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:28:55

Thank you very much. I also went and had a look at the site but I didn't have the benefit

of the case officer showing me around as well so I don't think I can add anything further

to what the team who went have said. So now we're going to move on to members' questions.

Councillor Fowles. I thought for a moment when we were hearing

Councillor David Fowles - 1:29:18

the comments at the site meeting that Councillor Cawe would return to his advertising days.

All that wonderful use of language about subtlety and nestling into the landscape.

It seems from what the site visit and the speaker, especially the parish council, were

saying, that I'm finding it difficult to understand how, given those comments, the officer can

make the recommendation that she does.

and wondered whether the conservation officer would like to comment on policy EN2 and EN4.

It should be of a design quality, respects the character and distinctive appearance of the locality

and the tranquility of the countryside.

Imposals should take account of landscape and historic landscape character, visual quality, etc.

and local distinctiveness. It seems what everybody is saying is that this is contrary to that.

The case officer says the development would not result in harm to any protectors, would result in modest benefits.

I really got two questions. Could the conservation officer comment on the design, please?

And could the case officer comment on what she means by modest benefits?

Officer - 1:30:31

Just to answer you in respect of modest benefits, I mean that's kind of supplying a dwelling,

which is obviously a significant public benefit at the moment is we don't have

the land, the housing supply and then also you'd have like economic benefits

in terms of like construction work so those are kind of the public benefits

really referred to by the reports and then if I can ask Justin to answer

your other point. Yes so it does it is a it is considered to be a public benefit

because we don't have the we don't have housing land supply at the moment.

Officer - 1:31:11

The officer's opinion following consultation, we have spoken to landscape officers and conservation

and design officers.

Overall, our recommendation is that we think it's an acceptable design and it doesn't have

an adverse landscape impact.

Obviously, members, you're taking a different view, a different perspective on that, which

absolutely see how you'd like to interpret the policies but that's our

recommendation so we feel that the public benefits outweigh any harm we

feel that the design is exactly

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:31:50

do then a point of policy when we're looking at paragraph 11 D the benefits

don't need to significantly and much that way the harm is the other way

around the harm would need to significantly to much that way the

benefits from the office point of view the recommendation is that the benefits

outweigh the harm. There doesn't need to be that additional test in there, that's only if we're looking at the harm outweighing the benefits.

Can I quickly come in because my question is for the conservation officer too and he could answer them both at the same time.

Councillor Andrew Maclean - 1:32:17

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:32:19

Councillor Andrew Maclean - 1:32:20

Looking at the design, it is obviously far superior to the one we saw at Temple Guiting, but it is still, it's not an honest house built as a house,

is built as a barn that's being converted. So I'd just like to hear your opinion on why that's

acceptable whereas the ones which were obviously not very good up the road in Temple Grating were

not. But I just want to be convinced that building one that looks like it's a barn that's been

converted is acceptable in a little village like Keinton. Thank you. Right okay.

Officer - 1:32:55

Okay, Kinton isn't a conservation area and the application site does not lie close to a listed building.

It's in the wider setting of a couple of listed buildings but it does not contribute massively.

So for that reason, in terms of the principle, I defer to the Planning Officer.

I didn't make a comment on the principle of development.

This side of the road is remarkably rural still and simple compared to the other side of the road.

So my concern was if we are going to have a house here replacing this stable, which

I'm afraid we did not consider that the existing stable was worthy of consideration as a non -designated

heritage asset by the way we would normally consider it.

So my view is if we are going to permit something on this side, that it should try to keep something

of a more rural, agricultural character.

That's why we went down this route.

It was specifically to try and not have this sense of domestic houses sprawling onto both

sides of the road which we felt would actually change the character quite a lot.

When it comes to the height, this is, effectively it is only one and a half stories high if

you look at it in terms of a house.

The gable end almost looks bigger because there's actually little fenestration, but

that is again typical of a barn.

And there is a barn just up the road, I can't remember exactly now, that has a similar gable

with a little window. So that was the intention. The earlier scheme, which I

had no input in, yes, sort of clearly heavily missed the mark. So I did provide

comments which guided the applicant towards the current scheme and it was to

try and just make it a simple modest threshing barn set at the right angles

to the road so we try and keep some sense of this openness of the grain on

that side with the eaves kept a simple the form kept a simple the fenestration

kept as minimal as possible except on the further gable end where it was so

it's right away from the settlement so that's the one chance where they could

be a little bit more contemporary so it was to try and minimize the

domestification if that's actually a word of this side of the road that

currently in this area still feels very rural and agricultural and it was to try

keeps some sense of that if we do permit a house on this site at all. And what's

fundamentally different about this from from the temple guiding development is

this scheme in its final form is actually a reasonably convincing

representation of a traditional Cotswold threshing barn and it sits on its own.

The temple guiding scheme did not look in any way convincing of the Cotswold threshing barns

and there were several large ones all clustered together in a form that was

completely alien to any historic farmstead.

So it's quite different.

So that is why we took this approach.

It was all about trying to not give this sense

of very urban structures sprawling.

And I mean, we could have gone for a bungalow on this site

and that would have kept it smaller,

but would a domestic bungalow really have preserved

the sense of it being a more rural agricultural context?

So I think that answers the question.

Thank you.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:36:17

Councillor David Fowles - 1:36:22

Without being facetious, isn't there another way of minimising the domestication of this

site of the village of Kainten, which is to leave it as it is?

It seems to me that I personally have a...

I hate seeing Cotswold pastiche developments and I'm very supportive emotionally of things

that are different and challenging and stuff like this, but we're now venturing into the

realms of representation of, you know, sort of...

I would use the word of pastiche, of a traditional Cotswold threshing barn and I have absolute

respect for Justin's judgement, but it just seems that everything everyone else is saying

suggests that we shouldn't do this and I respect the Member for bringing it to us.

Your language I thought was brilliant.

It's all about subtlety and nestling in.

I just said that the beginning isn't the other way of minimising the domestication

Councillor David Fowles - 1:37:22

of the site to just leave it as it is.

The answer to that has surely got to be yes.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:37:27

Councillor David Fowles - 1:37:28

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:37:30

In any context, yes, leaving something undeveloped, but that isn't...

Well, the question we've got to ask ourselves is, is it compliant with policy or is it contrary to policy?

Obviously, leaving anything alone leaves it as it is. There is a neutral and a no change,

but we've got to decide if this proposal is harmful to conflicts with any of the policies in our local plans.

Councillor David Fowles - 1:37:51

This particular application really does test this committee because this is almost an archetypal

hamlet in the Cotswolds and it's all about subtlety.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:38:00

Are you asking a question or is this verging on to comments?

Councillor Breslington.

Thank you.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:38:09

Could the case of it just clarify what is the height of the existing stable and what

is the height of what's being proposed?

So we haven't got an existing drawing of the stable, however I have

spoken to the applicant since the site visit and we think it's

approximately three and a half meters and the proposed running is eight meters

to the ridge height but to the eaves is 4 .2 meters so it's kind of lower

eaves if that helps. Do we know what the increase in floor space is? I don't

have the exact figures for that however I think the existing buildings

approximately 6 .5 meters in depth by 16 .5 and I think the proposed is

18 meters wide and 8 meters so it's only fractionally but it

obviously does have the extra story in it if that makes sense which would

Officer - 1:39:02

contribute to it. Thank you. Any further questions?

Councillor Judd was that you putting your hand up? Okay can I just ask

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:39:09

question about the tree I think you said that one tree was going to be removed

not that great big one on the corner there

Officer - 1:39:23

yes it's apparently a low -value tree that will be removed which will be in

the arboricultural statement so I haven't got the drawing to hand but

There's a very big tree on the south of the plot

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:39:40

between the house, the stables, and the barn.

I'm assuming it's not that one.

I would have thought that would have been a high value tree.

Officer - 1:39:47

It does depend upon the quality of the tree.

And some of them aren't of good quality,

and if they are larger.

However, when the tree is lost, what we do,

we do request mitigation planting for it.

And ultimately, if it's of a poor value,

it probably wouldn't necessarily have a long lifespan anyway.

and then we get a replacement tree planted under the landscape plan. Thank

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:40:10

you very much. We'll move on to comments. Councillor Judd. Thank you, Chair. I just

wonder if the president and scholars of Corpus Christi College would actually

put their names to putting an application like this where they are

chopping down mature trees of low quality but healthy.

I'm sorry, the two don't add up.

And taking away a community amenity,

which is clearly passionately loved

by this small, delicate community,

in the interest of development and profit.

Thank you.

Any further comments?

Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:41:08

Let's just be honest, this isn't a small dwelling in a Cotswold village, it's a whopping great

big house.

And we've had whopping great big houses in Longborough, four bedrooms, so a little bit

bigger than this building, two million pounds.

That's what one is currently on the market for at the moment in Longborough, in the old

cider mill.

I don't know how that is that policy DS3 that's meant to help community growth

I don't know how two million pound house is going to help kind of community grow

It probably probably and this is complete speculation

I'm sure somebody from London will come by this house and maybe visit it once every few weeks

That's not helping

Donington pub that's not helping the local community and this it's it's huge. It is really big

You just have to stand there looking up at the current satellite that roof is going to be

What would appear that one of the biggest buildings in the village? It's on such a high prominent position, and I really would

implore the committee to to I'm afraid to go against the officers

Recommendation and it's a lot of the phase. I'm proposing that we do refuse this this particular building

Yes policies and grounds we'd be refusing

We're taking away

local amenity in the village which is the saddlery. As the ward member said, there are

two. There's the Donington Park and the saddlery.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:42:39

Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:42:42

Sorry, can I just intervene? The saddlery isn't really a community facility as such.

It only has permission in the planning history to be used as a stable block. So we can't

really consider it as a loss of community facility as such.

As Daryl seconded, Chairman, I believe, as I tried to say in the questions which started off as being a question but became a comment,

I believe in our interpretation at this end of the committee that it's contrary to Local Plan Policy EN1,

that it does not promote the protection, conservation, enhancement of the historic and natural environment,

contrary to EN2, that it does not offer quality and respects the character and distinctive

appearance of the locality which has been explained to us by the people who went to

the site visit and indeed the parish council.

And it is not, it's contrary to policy EN4, which is that I think it does have a detrimental

impact on the natural and historic landscape, including the tranquility of the countryside.

I can't comment on the value of the House or indeed the President of Corpus Christi,

But I just think it just feels wrong.

But I do respect Justice Yu and you as the case officer.

But I believe the reason it's in front of this committee

is because the ward member wants us to make this kind of judgement.

And I'd be looking to officers to try and find a better way

of putting it than I have in terms of policy EM1,

EM2 and EM4. But perhaps Darryl.

and myself.

Councillor David Fowles - 1:44:15

Councillor Ian Watson - 1:44:35

Thank you, Chair. I have absolutely heard a lot of emotion from the local people.

and some of the members around.

Have you even heard poetry from Councilor Corr,

which is quite unusual.

Despite everything I heard in terms of emotion,

I'm looking at material planning considerations

and I just don't see them and I would need one or more

to vote against the officer's verdict

in that case because we're here to vote on material planning considerations.

The I was, if I can finish David and then we'll

come straight back to you. I did have a concern about the design and I'm very glad when I

heard Justin because it was in black and white on the plan, it wasn't easy for me to see

that what it was, how it would turn out, but I'm now more convinced that I've

heard Justin speak. So that's my comment. Thank you, Chair.

Councillor Tristan Wilkinson - 1:45:50

Thank you, Chair. I do wonder whether this application would take the

form it does if it was being developed by somebody who actually lived and

and planned to live in the village.

I do have a kind of general queasiness

with kind of absent landlords

kind of doing these sorts of things

when they don't have to bear the consequence of it.

I suspect many of the scholars

and president of Corpus Christi,

if they lived there, might take a different view

as to whether this was an appropriate dwelling.

In terms of substance,

Councillor Watson, I think that, again,

being new to this and not being fully read up on all of the policies, there does appear to be a genuine

concern about massing with regards to the kind of location of this site. So the fact that it's an

elevated site and it's a relatively large building, that does seem to be a consideration. Justin,

I thought you were very articulate in terms of your rationale. I must admit my mind has kind of

changed several times during the course of this.

You know, one about, there's a very,

this is a head and heart for me to be honest.

I think my heart is saying one thing,

my head is saying something else.

And I think that I really look to the chair

and vice chair and relevant officers in terms of

are there some standard grounds

against which this could be refused.

It sounds like there's lots of desire for that in the room,

but we also have to be led by what the policy says.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:47:28

Thank you. Material planning consideration. Local plan policy DS3, that's a material planning

consideration that says it should demonstrate police support in the hands of the vitality

of the local community and B says it's of a proportionate scale. It applies to both

of those. It doesn't support the vitality of the community and it's not a proportionate

scale in my opinion.

Obviously bearing in mind DS3 is out of date so if we were referring to DS3 we would then

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:47:58

have to refer ourselves to paragraph 11D and satisfy ourselves that it passes one of those

two tests.

We have not mentioned harm to the national landscape so I am assuming that isn't where

members would like to go.

So we would then be moving onto criteria two of 11DII.

My personal recommendation to you is that is not a particularly strong argument.

You are happy to, you know, if you are willing to put that to me and convince me otherwise

that is absolutely fine but my initial recommendation would be I am not convinced that is the strongest

The design reasons put forward I understand, EM1, EM2, EM4, they are relevant policies

and we can potentially put something together there if members would like to go down that

route.

But word of caution if we go down the DS3 paragraph 11 D route, I don't think that's

a particularly strong case.

But I would say please do prove me wrong or suggest otherwise because I'm happy to review

it.

Councillor David Fowles - 1:48:48

I was just going to go back to the Vice -Chairman's comment about the emotion of this. I tried

to stay away from the emotion, which is why I said, in my opinion, and I think in Councillor

Cawe's opinion and maybe one or two other members, it's contrary to the policies which

you've just referred to, Harry, EN1, EN2 and EN4. And in previous iterations of this committee,

Our officers, and thinking back to Vasa, Mike Napper,

and others, you know, when they could see that we,

the direction of travel not being presumptuous was

in the direction of wanting to refuse this application

to try and help us phrase that in a way that

endorses the policy.

So I think those policies there, taking on board

what Councillor Brassington said, who I also have

great respect for given his time as Chairman,

EN1, EN2, EN4.

I go back to what Justin said, you know, the way of minimizing the domestic the domestication of this side of the village is not to build this house.

Okay, because we're trying to make out that it's not a house. It looks like a traditional barn.

Well, forgive me, it's a small settlement and I think it's contrary to EM1, EM2, EM4.

Councillor McLean.

Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:50:04

Councillor Andrew Maclean - 1:50:06

I would add sustainability. It's in a village that's completely unsustainable.

The only access is by car and it's a long way to anything other than one pub.

And a couple of beautiful fords and a clapper bridge of course and things like that.

But for modern day services it's not that accessible.

It's in the middle of the Cotswold National Landscape as well and it would do harm to that national landscape

because it's a new build that's trying to look like an old build but it's not.

So it is actually doing harm to the national landscape.

And we did hear issues about biodiversity as well,

and the potential impact, because there are very large

windows which are going to shine out at night and disrupt any

wildlife corridors that there might be.

There are an awful lot of tree -lined roots around there,

which the bats and other animals will be following.

So I think biodiversity impact will also be negative.

So I think those are also grounds that we can put in

for the refusal.

Thank you.

Councillor Judd.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:51:05

Well actually, Councillor McLean sort of slightly took the wind out of my sails.

I'm sorry, Julia.

Councillor Julia Judd - 1:51:14

But I just do know that it's these little tiny country lanes that lead to these hamlets

and things that are becoming more and more precarious, especially with people who don't

really know them very well and just expect there's nobody to be around the corner.

But there are policies that we can cite which support material planning considerations,

why we should not support officers' recommendations on this.

We need to be brave sometimes.

That is why there's a planning committee here.

And I think that we're all feeling the same thing and we feel that those policies are

there to capture moments like this and we need to have the courage to move forward and

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:51:59

them. Okay does anyone have any further comments to make?

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:52:08

Councillor Coleman. Chair I started this listening to this discussion feeling

quite strongly inclined not to support the officer's recommendation but one of

the risks of a long discussion of this nature is that the more it goes on the

weak some of the arguments are exposed to be. I'm now tending to want to support the

officer's recommendation as being at least a way of ensuring that a habitable property

is erected in a village which needs the occasional extra property. And even though it may be

too big, I think the conservation officer has got a point in that it won't seem out

of place as you approach the village, and that is quite a strong consideration. That

was all.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:52:52

Thank you very much. Do we go on the proposal to start with or am I going to ask Councillor

Coleman if he wants to make a counter proposal? We need the reasons. Do you want to go through

suggested reasons.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:53:24

Our officers will put forward the suggested reasons for refusal.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:53:35

To clarify, I've had EN1, EN2, EN4. Who is proposing?

Can I just clarify, would you like to go beyond that?

I'm really happy with those three policies.

and the desire and impact on the S3.

Sorry, check.

Is policy DS3 relevant? No. None at all.

Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:53:53

Where would the biodiversity

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:53:59

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:54:01

It depends where your concerns lie.

EN8 is the policy relevant to biodiversity, but obviously,

bear in mind, our biodiversity officer has raised no objection to the scheme of biodiversity grounds.

it would deliver a 10 % biodiversity net gain overall in accordance with the statutory requirements.

And they are satisfied that the scheme is acceptable.

So again, if you want to go down that route, that's fine, but you might just have to articulate to us why you don't agree with that recommendation

just so we can prepare your sort of...

Because again, my recommendation would be the biodiversity officer has looked at it and has no objection.

They satisfied the statutory duty to deliver the biodiversity net gain.

Councillor David Fowles - 1:54:36

I just want to, I want to restate that we, the proposal and the seconder, totally respect

the recommendation from the officer and the conservation officer.

They don't want that to not be implicit in that.

So it's, once we respect that, it is, as Councillor Judd said, it's all about interpretation

and that's why it's in front of this committee.

And we're trying to use our judgement based on what we've heard and that site visit, which

I think was pivotal.

Thank you.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:55:05

So can I clarify, you're proposing?

Councilor Call is proposing?

And you're seconding?

Okay.

Council event

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:56:11

we'll give version one ago and if members would like to amend it

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:56:22

without

cancer cord like to amend these more than welcome to and so the site holds an

The design quality fails to respect the character and distinctive appearance of the locality

and significant detrimental impact on the natural landscape.

Does that cover everything you would like it to cover?

Please do say if it doesn't.

I'm more than happy to.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:56:56

If you would like, I need to know what about the biodiversity is harmful.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:57:12

Councillor McLean, did you want to make any further comment about the biodiversity?

Including that, our head of planning has suggested it's not

the right thing to do because our biodiversity officer has

accepted the proposal.

Let's see.

Okay.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:57:58

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:58:01

Yeah, we sort of reflect natural landscape we've got in there and those sort of natural

features.

It's a biodiversity, I guess it's maybe a biodiversity we don't treat as ecology, that

more technical ecological side of things which, yeah, obviously we can discuss it but I would

need to know exactly what the concern is that we can then try and articulate.

Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:58:20

And DS3 talking about integrating with the existing landscape, that isn't something that

you think could be a different...

We can talk about DS3.

The only issue is DS3 is out of date so we then have to refer ourselves to 11D, I and

I we've not identified harm to the national landscapes we'd have to look at

II it's a challenging argument to make we can go through it but my

personal recommendation is this is quite challenging. Your personal

recommendations very good thank you. Okay so we're moving towards the

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:58:43

vote does

anyone want to hear the refusal recommendations read out again? Okay

thank you.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:58:53

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:58:53

Councillor Julia Judd - 1:59:06

So since the MPPF is updated, our local plan policy DS4 has become obsolete, but paragraph

11 of the MPPF has superseded that and made it more powerful.

It doesn't actually say that in the current papers, which is what Councillor Brassington

and I were digging through.

I think that paragraph 11 of the MPPF does not align with officers recommendation on this. That's all I'm saying.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:59:37

Okay, did you want to hear the refusal reasons again? Yes, I would. Thank you.

Councillor Julia Judd - 1:59:43

Officer - 1:59:45

So the reason for refusal that would potentially be the site holds an elevated and a prominent position within the street scene on the approach

to the village of Kyneton. By virtue of the design, scale and form of the development,

it fails to protect or enhance the existing natural assets and their settings contrary

to policy EN1A. The design quality fails to respect the character and distinctive appearance

of the locality and has a significant detrimental impact on the natural landscape, contrary

to policies EN2 and EN4.

Just to clarify before you vote, we may tidy up some of the language

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:00:21

if members are satisfied.

We won't change any of the content of it, but we may just tidy up the object of word

just to make sure it reads properly.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:00:32

Okay, we'll move to the vote, which is to refuse the Office's recommendation proposed

by Councillor Cawr and seconded by Councillor Fowles.

Oops, wrong thing.

So that application is refused.

I'm not sure if we've got everybody there.

Anyone missing?

Thank you very much.

It's now four o 'clock.

Would you like a ten minute comfort break?

10 24/03111/FUL - The Saddlery, Kineton, Guiting Power

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:01:50

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:01:52

I think it's traditionally we ask one of our officers to read it out which seems to

be the right thing to me to do.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:02:05

It might show bias if a ward member ready to have potential bias.

I'm not saying there would be, but there's a potential for it.

I'm sure it's best that the officer reads it out.

Anyhow, I'm calling you to order now.

We're going to regroup.

Okay, so we're now moving on to agenda item 11, which is for the demolition of existing

11 25/01020/FUL - Duchy Home Farm, Tetbury

agricultural shed and redundant silage pits, replacement calf shed with solar panels on

the roof of Duchy Home Farm, Tethby, Gloucestershire. The applicant is Mr. James Gay. The case officer

is Christina Carter. The ward member is Councillor Laura Hall -Wilson, and the recommendation

application is to permit.

Have we got any speakers?

Yes.

Anthony Wright.

Agent.

Oh, there you go.

You've been waiting very patiently, Mr. Wright.

Oh, sorry.

The case officer's report, first of all.

Sorry.

Not much longer until it's your turn.

Thank you, Christina.

Thanks.

Officer - 2:03:14

I think we do have just a brief additional page, the

Tertbury -Abton parish council have since my report offered their support for the application.

So that's all. So we can move on to the presentation.

Where is the additional page?

It should be encoded.

I think there is some more on the desk at the back, if not.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:04:03

Thank you.

If you would like to continue with your report, we can make sure

Officer - 2:04:20

everyone has got that copy.

Thank you, Councillor Neill.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:04:23

Officer - 2:04:25

The proposal is for demolition of existing shed and an erection of a new calf shed.

So the application site is part of a Broadfield Farm Estate.

It is located about half a kilometre northeast of Tettaberry.

Here we can see the red line around the existing and proposed shed.

As you can see, this is the shed, the new shed will be in the middle of an existing agricultural holding.

It will be, it would be surrounded by similar, by similar structures.

This is the proposed building, so a very typical looking agricultural building for this purpose.

We can see the west elevation and the north elevation

and then east and south.

To the south elevation we have proposed solar panels.

To the roof line, and just to give you an idea of what is

there at the moment, this is the existing shed in which the

calves are currently kept.

The applicant has expressed concerns that the shed is not

fit for purpose and they do need a new one for the housing

of calves.

So this is an established dairy business.

So it is just a typical agricultural farm yard.

And the reason that this application is in front of you

today is because the proposed building would be over 1 ,000

square meters.

So it obviously falls under a major category and needs to be

brought to the committee but other than that there are little concerns regarding

this replacement building. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr Wright would you

like to come forward?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:06:36

Officer - 2:06:42

So you have three minutes to present your case.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:06:52

Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to make

Applicant/Agent - 2:06:57

a representation

today.

Broadfield Farm forms part of Duchy Home Farm and the wider Highgrove Estate.

My client, Mr Gay, had the privilege in 2021 of taking on a long -term tenancy

from the former Prince of Wales, who is now our King. The tenancy was given to my

client to continue His Majesty's hard work and passion to promote farming, the

environment and new farming technologies. Duchy Home Farm has a responsibility to

remain being a flagship for the best practice across the Duchy of Cornwall

Estate. The farm comprises a mixed organic dairy farm with around 220 milking cows,

producing on average 1 .3 million litres of milk per year,

which is sold to Waitrose.

Approximately 200 dairy calves are born every year.

The proposed Agile Shed is a vital addition to the farm's future

and infrastructure, specifically intended for the housing of calves

and will bring about significant improvements in both animal health and welfare.

The proposed shed has been endorsed by the Rural More Payments Agency, DEFRA,

which forms part of a grant application called the Farming Investment Fund.

It's an opportunity for farmers to receive co -funding for large

infrastructure projects that helps to continue to improve the

health and welfare of animals.

The shed has been carefully designed to provide young stock

with a well -ventilated, clean, and calm environment,

enabling better disease prevention,

more consistent growth, and overall improved well -being.

It reflects my client's ongoing commitment to raise the

standards of animal care on the farm.

My client has the full support of the head vet at Waitrose.

In addition, the proposal includes installing rooftop solar panels as part of the development,

which will generate the majority of electricity required for the shed and the wider farming operations.

This forms a key part of the farm's ambition to become carbon neutral in the short -term future.

The shed has been located within the existing farmyard, replacing redundant silage bays and an existing building,

rather than being located on open green space.

The shed has been carefully designed.

Rather than a purely functional structure, it incorporates a more refined reform that

reflects the values championed by His Majesty that rural buildings should sit well within

their surroundings and contribute positively to the character of the countryside, particularly

the Cotswolds.

My client is proud of what this building represents, not just for his farm, but for the wider agriculture

community.

It will serve as a leading example of how young stock can be housed to the highest standards,

both in terms of welfare and environmental responsibility.

I therefore respectfully ask the committee to look favorably

upon this application and support my client's efforts

to build a more sustainable, high welfare future

for British agriculture.

As you'll all be aware, British farming has not had the ease

of rides over the past 12 months.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:09:50

And I think, will you read out, Julia, will you read out Councillor Hall -Wilson's statement?

I think she's on maternity leave at the moment.

She is.

Having looked at the details of this planning application and noting

Julia Gibson, Officer - 2:10:06

there is no objection from the Parish Council,

nor any other residents within my ward, I would like to also express that I have no objection to this application and would like to give it my support.

Dutchy Home Farm have identified issues with their current provision for housing and rearing calves,

and it's quite right that they should seek to rectify this with these plans for new accommodation with enhanced animal welfare provision.

Not only does this plan provide better animal welfare, consideration has also been given to the provision of renewable energy for the site,

with the plans including solar panels on the roof of the new building.

I also note the presence of the biodiversity net gain report

detailing an uplift of 72 .74 % considerably higher than the 10 % required.

I very much hope that permission is granted for this development.

Duchy Home Farm does a great job via Instagram of updating us all on their activities

and sharing information about farming practices here on our doorstep.

So I look forward to seeing the calves in their new surroundings.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:11:11

Now do we have any members questions?

No, do we have any members comments? Councillor McLean.

Councillor Foulsey, you're the second one to put your hand up.

I was going to second but I think I'd have to I think I fair other members who

want a second since I've seconded everything it might be better if someone

else seconded it if there is a seconder if there's not

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:11:50

Councillor Braskin, so proposed by Councillor McLean and seconded by

Councillor Braskin. So we will go to the vote to accept the officers

recommendation to permit this application.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:12:36

Now we are moving on to our agenda item 12, which is for the demolition of existing building

and erection of replacement building for the storage of logs at Compton Avdale Cheltenham.

The applicant is Mr Fred Walker. The case officer is Graham Smith. The board member

is Councillor Paul Hodgkinson and the recommendation is to permit. Can I ask the

case officer to present any updates?

Thank you.

Has counseling just left us?

She's going to be taking a test.

Thank you, chair.

Officer - 2:14:35

Thank you.

We're moving on to the presentation now.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:14:41

Officer - 2:14:43

The application relates to a storage building on the site.

Sorry, you might have to use the arrows.

Relating to the industrial operations at Compton Farm.

That's the existing elevations.

The current building amounts to 1 ,485 square meters.

It is proposed to replace it with a slightly larger building of 1 ,664 square meters.

The height would be slightly increased from 6 meters to 9 meters.

The building itself would be moved slightly further to the south of the site just to avoid

the need to service it with an access where it currently has an access.

The access would all come from the north.

The building itself is a typical industrial stroke agricultural building.

It resembles a number of the other buildings on the site.

There's about six other buildings on the site.

It would be used for the storage of logs.

It's a very typical four -pan.

That's the existing building.

You can see on the right -hand side of the photograph there is quite a large tree belt

that does shield the development.

The proposal relates to an existing use by Walker's Logs, which has been on the site

since 2009.

It's part of their ongoing business operations. The building is not fit for continued purpose.

So the applicant would like to redevelop it and put up a purpose building. Thank you,

chair. Thank you very much. I don't think we have

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:17:07

any public speakers. Do we have anything from the ward councillor?

Okay, in that case we'll move on to members questions. Councillor Conlon.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:17:22

Thank you. Page 204 in paragraph 1047. Biodiversity net gain.

Incidentally I'd be very interested to get some data soon and if I forget to

write for it please somebody remember about just how much money is being

collected and sent to whom for biodiversity net gain off -site unit

purchase and the same applies in spades to Cladinger and the other big circle

thing that we have to constantly take money off people. We've just voted to

take I think something like 14 ,000 and something from Bromford towards those

protected two zones. So this one says this application is within de minimis

for a 10 % net gain and biodiversity.

That's paragraph 10 .47.

But the previous application, which to an untrained

eye doctor was so similar, one big shed replaces another,

they got hit.

Why has this one not been hit?

I mean, the answer is that it's already developed,

so it's already a concrete hard standing that the building

is being set on.

if it was an area of grassland then they would be liable for biodiversity net

gain but they're not in this case. Thank you.

Sorry.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Bresson.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:18:55

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:18:58

Yeah, I just want to clarify. The building is purely for storage.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:19:01

There's nothing going on else in the building besides.

Yes, it is purely for storage of logs.

Officer - 2:19:09

The operation is technically a B2, an employment use B2 with

ancillary B8, but the B2 uses are all undertaken elsewhere

on the site, so it would just purely be for storage of logs.

There's no industrial processes.

Yes, I remember it from days past.

Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:19:36

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:19:39

Any other questions? I've just had them been passed a note to say that

Councillor Hodgkinson has no comments but has no objection either. So there we

go that can go under comments. Do we have any members comments? Councillor Fowls

this is your moment to be first in line. I was going to make a comment which

Councillor David Fowles - 2:19:59

might not be appropriate, but now I know why their logs are so

expensive, because they are very good logs.

And the comment that was made earlier by Councillor McLean is

I'm just interested to know where they do kiln dry them.

I mean, they store them here, but do they kiln dry

on the same site?

Out of curiosity?

Yes, yes, they do.

Okay, right.

We've no one else that's going to do it.

I propose that we accept this recommendation and approve this one.

Councillor David Fowles - 2:20:41

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:21:04

That application is unanimously approved.

Thank you very much.

She's not in the room, so she can't count.

There's ten of us left.

Good.

So now we move on to Item 13, which is about the national scheme of delegation, Reform

of Planning Committee's technical consultation, and our head of planning, Harris and Boley,

is going to bring us up to date on that.

There's no presentation of slides on this one,

as it's all in your report pack.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:21:53

Effectively, MHCLG have put out a national scheme,

a consultation on a national scheme of delegation

amongst a few other bits and pieces.

We as a council are invited, as all the councils are

and all individuals are, to provide a response to that.

As that response directly affects this planning committee,

as it will relate to the national schemes delegation,

the applications that you see.

It was felt necessary to bring it before you all

so you could all review.

In anticipation of this, you'll see there's a bit of background

information that I provided, but from page 229,

if you're a poor pack, effectively my first draft

response comments, effectively, to this,

the recommendation in front of you is effectively we can either

accept those comments as I've written them and they can be

12 25/01049/FUL - Compton Farm, Compton Abdale

submitted to MHCLG.

I'm able to take on board any additional comments or amend

13 National Scheme of Delegation

them as you may wish to each of the any of the questions you may wish to or if

you don't agree with them we can sort of reject them and review alternative

options. The consultation closes at the end of this month therefore we will have

to get something sort of resolved even if it is to delegate to me to amend

other bits and pieces. So yes hopefully that provides a bit of background but

otherwise it really is sort of as written in the report and we can I'm not

proposing we go through every question because there's 20 of them and some of

them are sort of more formalities and there are the key groupings of the questions are

effectively the tiering of applications and what would come to planning committee. There's

a little bit on appeals and how they would monitor us and other bits and pieces on appeals

and then there's the other, the more formality bits which are the legal aspects, the equality

acts and things like that. Again, we haven't proposed particularly long or extensive responses

to those. But really I'm happy to sort of put it out to the floor for members to sort

question discuss it might be a bit more free for my normal questions as we have

a bit more for discussion but send yes

Councillor Michael Vann - 2:23:52

thanks thank you question six page two three one now bearing in mind the second

tier, that's us, is being abolished shortly, interested in possible involvement of present

third tier authorities in what I would say would still be a robust approach.

Is this, with the tiering, that's referring back to some of the previous questions, which

is the application types that would come to planning.

No, no, no, sorry. I was talking about the counties of first tier, where second tier,

Townsend Parish is third tier. That's the tier that I'm thinking of.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:24:48

So this would purely, well it would obviously depend if we go unitary, that would be very

different but for now it would purely be looking at the council, the district level effectively,

so yeah it would purely be this planning committee based on applications that would come to it

so it wouldn't look at the other tiers. Although in theory the national scheme of the delegation

would apply to all planning committees so yeah whether it's unitary or district councils

or boroughs as well.

Thank you. This is a very important consultation document. It's going

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:25:16

to affect this committee

Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:25:18

and every Councillor in my country. Having looked at it, I've got a lot of comments to

make and I was thinking it may be more appropriate if we had a small sub -group of maybe three

members and a planning officer to go through it in detail and come up with comments additional

to what you've got already. That was what I was suggesting. I don't know what members

think about that.

To say what we'd probably do if members wanted to go down the route we can obviously vote

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:25:45

is the recommendation would effectively be to delegate the decision to me subject to

consultation with a subcommittee or a mini committee of members on this committee, which

we probably should agree as part of that who would like to be on that. If members feel

that would be something beneficial that is something we can vote upon.

Councillor Conlon. Thank you, Chair. Yes. If we had a different

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:26:09

system which we discussed earlier for what should come to this committee, we've been

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:26:12

onto this very important topic about two hours ago. But that's the way things are. I mean,

this is ludicrous central control gone mad. All my life I found myself standing either

far or near to the left of the Labour Party and its governments forms, ludicrous central

control, trying to suggest that they can decide in London whether or not

councillors should have a say in between one and nine houses being built in areas

of national landscape. Absolutely ludicrous. The ironic part of this is

that the quality of planning decision -making across the country has

improved by the incentive of having your rights taken away if you refuse too many

things and we got accidentally a bit close to that about a year ago.

fortunately we weren't we didn't fall into the traps up for instance the

council that has Stansted Airport and its boundaries and doesn't like it has

lost its planning powers because it's been overturned too many times on appeal

the most important thing here is that I agree with so thoroughly is the point

that our officers have made with regard to the planning inspection service the

pins. Now, I am trying to find the page but I read this some time ago and I thought yes,

somehow or other we have to put this in ten times. Here it is on page 234. Any revision

to the thresholds for quality decision -making performance management should be preceded,

please, not accompanied, by a thorough, rigorous review of the quality of the planning inspectors'

decision making. And I only say this after a ludicrous number of months, if not indeed

years, of looking at every planning appeal that we have at a decision and seeing how

learning slowly, how varied they can be. You can't predict what a committee is going to

do if you're an officer. You certainly can't predict what an inspector is going to do.

There appears to be no control at all over this. And I would urge, if we do down the

because perhaps I'm a bit too wound up about the whole damn thing.

Telling councils with a hundred councillors that they can only have one

planning committee of 11 people would be ludicrous so they would get around that

you know the big unitary big rural unitaries they'll get around that by

having several area planning committees so the business of telling us how many

members we have which is another stupid idea of centralization I think we can

cope with and I think the opposite says there's no objection and but coming back

to it to say that in areas with sensitive countryside that local people

can have no say in one two three four five six seven eight or nine houses being

built it just shows how out of touch government is and that's regardless of

party because the last lot were any better so yeah let's have a small group

if you like but you might need somebody a little bit more patient than me on it

Thank you, Councillor Coleman. Could you switch your microphone?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:29:12

Councillor McLean? I do think it's a funny time to have this

Councillor Andrew Maclean - 2:29:19

consultation, seeing we do have a limited life left in this planning committee. I think

Councillor van's point is extremely important in this. Councillor Coleman alluded to it

as well, that it's how it's going to function in a unitary that's important going forward

and how local voices are going to get into that much larger system and how that can be protected.

And I think reflecting those comments into our reply is something that presumably right across the country

is coming into people's minds as they reply to this consultation. Thank you.

I think with hindsight on the question relating to the size of

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:29:56

committees, I think I put 11 was not objectionable, obviously,

is how many we've got here.

That is purely looking at it from a district point of view.

With the hindsight of actually thinking more about unitary,

I agree, you know, when you have a larger area,

ensuring representativeness on your committee is important

and 11 may not be enough.

So that's certainly something we can review.

And I think with hindsight, having noticed this a couple

of weeks ago and reflected on it a bit longer,

it is probably something we should at least comment on,

that a lot larger unitary authorities should have larger

committees to represent the wider area that they are

representing as part of their committee.

It's a great voice for council.

Councillor Nick Bridges - 2:30:45

Under question 15, it talks about certification of planning committee members.

So presumably people like me would have to obtain a certificate in order to be on this committee.

Have you any idea how much work is involved in passing that certificate?

No, it's currently only a proposal.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:31:04

I think our response to it is some kind of, if they'd like to go down a national certification route, fine,

but it should never substitute local training and local guidance.

So, the view is I think it would be a bit like the training we all did recently on the high -level basics of planning.

My view is that is what they're alluding to in the consultation.

It is going through that training on the basics of the

planning system.

But I think the point we're trying to make is the localized

training should not be substituted.

Instead of that, we still need something that supports

members locally.

Not necessarily a certification, but some form of training that

just helps support those local key issues.

But no, there's no word at the minute on what that would look

like.

It's something they proposed a couple of times before, but this

is the first time I've seen it in writing in a consultation.

But the way it's written is as if it is at a high level over

view of the planning system.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:32:04

I would propose that the response to this document is delegated to our

officers in consultation with the chair, vice chair and other members of the

committee through correspondence. So we don't have to have any meetings we send

in our views and the officer amalgams them.

More work for you, less work for us.

Are you happy with that idea, Councillor Breslington?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:32:31

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:32:31

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:32:32

Well, nobody's come forward safely

want to serve on the subgroup or anything,

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:32:34

so we'll go down that route then.

I'll send in my comments.

At least it will be properly written then, won't it?

I'll send in my comments separately.

Sure.

Is everybody happy with that idea?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:32:49

How would you like us to handle that, Harrison? Would you like us to individually email you?

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:32:57

Have you got a victim? Sorry, will you volunteer?

I can think of a couple. The options, I guess, are either that all the members email yourself as the chair and vice -chair,

you compile them, and then the three of us sit down. We could use our democratic services colleagues to do it,

or we can all just email me. Whatever is easiest, really, as long as everyone knows how to do it.

I think we probably need to set a deadline for those because obviously we need to get a response off.

So would members be come to the end of next week, Friday, five o 'clock, that is the 18th.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:33:31

I'm happy for people to email me with comments if that would work better.

But I am going away on the 16th, so it would have to be before then.

I mean we could have it if members want to email me any comments they

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:33:43

have by five o 'clock on Friday next week.

I will then in consultation with the chair and vice chair agree on a final set of responses that reflect the sort of, make sure everyone's comments are addressed.

If that makes it a bit easier.

Got to be in by the 23rd of July I make it. That's not long is it?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:34:05

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:34:06

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:34:09

I'm going to be away travelling on the 16th and I'm going to be in Zimbabwe on the 18th

where I can't guarantee that my email will work very well.

Is there any chance of doing it before I go, do you think?

What's the date today?

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:34:25

So we'd have to be sending suggested comments by the 15th for you to look at them?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:34:40

Well if you could, I mean everybody will have read it by now won't you, I hope?

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:34:42

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:34:44

Yeah and Councillor Brasington for sure has already written his comments so he

can send them. If anybody else has comments if you could send them

either to me or Harrison by the weekend,

then I'd be able to deal with it in consultation

with yourself before I go away.

Is that all right?

I'm sorry about that.

Anywhere else in the world, I'd say.

The email is reliable, but it certainly isn't.

There, yeah.

Is that all right?

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:35:12

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So we'll email them to you.

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:35:15

Yes.

Yes, another note on your plate.

But there we go.

Just apologize, you'll receive an out of office

for the rest of this week, back on Monday.

Okay.

Oh, well, do you want me to compile it then and send you

the compilation by Monday?

We can do it.

No, it's in the school. Everyone can send them to me.

All right. And you'll let me know, say, by Tuesday or something.

Yes, we'll set up a maybe out and out.

Yes, I can do a Zoom meeting or something. Great. Lovely.

Are we all right to vote on that, just to make sure we've got

something for the record in the minutes?

Sorry?

Can we vote on that?

Yes, yes, sorry, go on.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:35:46

Can we vote on that, just so we've got a record

for the minutes of the meeting.

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 2:35:52

No, sorry, please.

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:35:58

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:36:03

So, yes, so the proposal is that we all submit our comments

to Harrison as their head of planning by the weekend.

He will then compile them on Monday,

and liaising with me, he will come up with a new form of words

and will accept that he has the delegated authority

to update his document and pass it on to the government.

Does that sound all right to everybody?

So we all understand what we're voting for.

Great. Okay.

We need a proposer and a seconder.

Okay, Councillor Coleman proposes,

Councillor McLean seconds.

Who has not voted? That motion is passed.

at the start. Sorry? It's Julie here at the start. I don't think it matters. It's not like a planning

application is it? Okay. All right. Well it's accepted by the overwhelming

majority in that case. Okay so now we need to move on back to the agenda

before you all decide to go home. Is there a site inspection briefing do we

now on August the 6th? There may well be I think we've got another couple of

major developments coming forward I might need to confirm exactly where they

are because they're not set in stone but if one of them I know we will be calling an SIB

so if that is one of them sorry that's a little bit vague. I'm happy with panel unless

members would like. Okay so the people on that at the moment to myself

Councillor Bridges, Councillor Coleman, Councillor Fowles and Councillor Fann are

you all available on the 6th of August? I'm back by then. And the licensed

subcommittee is that going to be one? Okay good and so our next committee will

be on 13th of August.

Yes, yes.

Chair, my apologies. I will be away.

I'm counting.

Councillor Julia Judd - 2:38:34

Okay, will you find a substitute?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:38:36

I will do my best to find a substitute within my group.

If I can't, I'll...

Let the Democratic Services know.

I will also be on vacation that time.

So you may be looking for an alternative.

Councillor Julia Judd - 2:38:49

It is August, isn't it?

Councillor Dilys Neill - 2:38:58

I'll sort that out. We've got plenty of able people who can do that.

Yeah.

Great. In that case, I wish those members who are not going to be here a happy holiday

and we'll see you on the 13th of August.

Thank you.

Please provide any feedback/comments relating to the live webcast here. Any feedback submitted will be received to the Democratic Services team.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Cotswold District Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

There are currently no votes to display

Planning and Licensing Committee - Wednesday 9 July 2025, 2:00pm - Cotswold District Council Webcasting

Planning and Licensing CommitteeWednesday, 9th July 2025 at 2:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:00:06

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:00:07

1 Apologies

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:01:03

Councillor Ian Watson - 0:01:17

Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:01:33

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:01:41

Councillor Andrew Maclean - 0:01:43

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:01:49

Councillor Julia Judd - 0:01:54

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:02:00

Councillor Tristan Wilkinson - 0:02:05

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:02:12

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:02:20

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:02:20

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:02:21

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:02:24

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:02:26

Officer - 0:02:32

Officer - 0:02:36

Officer - 0:02:41

Officer - 0:02:45

2 Substitute Members

3 Declarations of Interest

Leonie Woodward, Legal Services - 0:02:53

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:03:05

Councillor David Fowles - 0:03:17

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:03:45

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:03:53

4 Minutes

Councillor Michael Vann - 0:04:31

Councillor Tristan Wilkinson - 0:04:32

Councillor Nick Bridges - 0:04:43

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:04:46

Schedule of Applications

6 Public questions

7 Member questions

Schedule of Applications

8 24/03501/OUT - Land North of The Wern, Lechlade

Officer - 0:07:56

Officer - 0:08:25

Officer - 0:08:46

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:13:28

Town/Parish Council - 0:14:30

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:17:55

Objector - 0:17:56

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:21:15

Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:21:37

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:25:36

Councillor David Fowles - 0:26:28

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:26:31

Councillor David Fowles - 0:26:32

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:26:34

Councillor David Fowles - 0:26:40

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:26:42

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:26:52

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:27:07

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:27:11

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:28:11

Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:28:12

Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:28:18

Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:28:23

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:28:36

Officer - 0:28:55

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:30:47

Officer - 0:30:58

Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:31:32

Officer - 0:31:39

Planning and Licensing Committee
Wednesday, 9th July 2025 at 2:00pm