Planning and Licensing Committee - Wednesday 12 March 2025, 2:00pm - Start video at 0:13:51 - Cotswold District Council Webcasting
Agenda
Slides
Transcript
Map
Resources
Forums
Speakers
Feedback
Votes
Initialising
Speaking:
Agenda item :
Start of webcast
Share this agenda point
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Gary Selwyn
-
Councillor Andrew Maclean
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Councillor Julia Judd
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Daryl Corps
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Officer
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Kira Thompson, Officer
-
Julia Gibson, Officer
-
Officer
-
Harrison Bowley, Planning
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
Slide 1
Agenda item :
1 Apologies
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
2 Substitute Members
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
3 Declarations of Interest
Share this agenda point
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
Agenda item :
4 Minutes
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
Schedule of Applications
Share this agenda point
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
Agenda item :
8 24/01608/FUL - Land West of Down Ampney Football Club
Share this agenda point
- 24.01608.FUL - Case Officer Report
- 1 - 24.01608.FUL - Site Location Plan
- 2 - 24.01608.FUL - Axonometric View
- 3 - 24.01608.FUL - Visualisation - Streetscape
- 4 - 24.01608.FUL - Visualisation - Parkscape
- 5 - 24.01608.FUL - Proposed Street Scene - 2 Bedroom 4 Person Terrace
- 6 - 24.01608.FUL - Proposed Elevations - 3 Bedroom 6 Person Terrace
- 7 -24.01608.FUL - Proposed Elevations - 2 Bedroom 4 Person Terrace
- 8 - 24.01608.FUL - Proposed Site Layout
- 9 - 24.01608.FUL - Detailed Landscape Masterplan
- 10 - 24.01608.FUL - Photograph
- Additional Pages
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Town/Parish Council
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Objector
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Objector
-
Applicant/Agent
-
Applicant/Agent
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Helen Blundell, Legal Services
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Harrison Bowley, Planning
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Julia Gibson, Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Julia Judd
-
Officer
-
Councillor Julia Judd
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Andrew Maclean
-
Officer
-
Councillor Andrew Maclean
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Gary Selwyn
-
Officer
-
Councillor Gary Selwyn
-
Officer
-
Councillor Gary Selwyn
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Officer
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Officer
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Julia Judd
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Julia Judd
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Officer
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Daryl Corps
-
Officer
-
Harrison Bowley, Planning
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Julia Judd
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Andrew Maclean
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Julia Judd
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Daryl Corps
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Daryl Corps
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor David Fowles
Agenda item :
8 24/01608/FUL - Land West of Down Ampney Football Club
Share this agenda point
- 24.01608.FUL - Case Officer Report
- 1 - 24.01608.FUL - Site Location Plan
- 2 - 24.01608.FUL - Axonometric View
- 3 - 24.01608.FUL - Visualisation - Streetscape
- 4 - 24.01608.FUL - Visualisation - Parkscape
- 5 - 24.01608.FUL - Proposed Street Scene - 2 Bedroom 4 Person Terrace
- 6 - 24.01608.FUL - Proposed Elevations - 3 Bedroom 6 Person Terrace
- 7 -24.01608.FUL - Proposed Elevations - 2 Bedroom 4 Person Terrace
- 8 - 24.01608.FUL - Proposed Site Layout
- 9 - 24.01608.FUL - Detailed Landscape Masterplan
- 10 - 24.01608.FUL - Photograph
- Additional Pages
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
Agenda item :
9 24/02125/FUL - The Barn Hills Farm
Share this agenda point
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Town/Parish Council
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Supporter
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Applicant/Agent
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Applicant/Agent
-
Officer
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Julia Judd
-
Officer
-
Councillor Julia Judd
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Harrison Bowley, Planning
-
Councillor Julia Judd
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Officer
-
Councillor Dilys Neill
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Andrew Maclean
-
Harrison Bowley, Planning
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Daryl Corps
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Officer
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Harrison Bowley, Planning
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Andrew Maclean
-
Officer
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Mark Harris
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Gary Selwyn
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Patrick Coleman
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor Daryl Corps
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Julia Judd
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Councillor David Fowles
-
Councillor Ray Brassington
-
Webcast Finished
Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:00:08
If we could start now please members. Good afternoon, welcome to this meeting of CotswoldDistrict Council's Planning and Licensing Committee. My name is Councillor Ray Brasington
and I am chair of this committee. Members, officers and members of the public in attendance
I remind you that this meeting has been live streamed and recorded on the Council's website.
Please can members and officers turn their microphones on while speaking and turn them
off so they can be seen and heard.
I'd like to remind everyone present in the Chamber today to please turn off their mobile
phones or put them on silent.
I would also like to request that the public remain quiet during proceedings and avoid
interactions with committee members.
If there is an adjournment of today's meeting, if you would like to leave the meeting partway
through, please keep in mind that proceedings are still taking place and do so quietly.
Toilets can be found to the left of the Council Chamber.
For those watching online, you can view the electronic voting record via the Votes tab
on the webcast page, which is available on the Council's website and will be recorded
in a minute of the meeting.
Should anything go wrong with the electronic voting system, then we will resort to show of hands.
We are not expecting the fire alarm to sound. If it does, please exit the building the way you came in.
The procedure the committee uses is for our planning officers to provide a committee with any updates on this application along with a presentation.
Any additional pages are published to the Council's website.
I will then call our registered speakers to address the committee.
I would like to remind those public speakers registered that they are allowed up to three
minutes to speak.
Once three minutes is complete they will be instructed to cease their remarks.
The ward member, if he wishes, can address the committee and they will have up to five
minutes.
Right, to start the agenda I'm going to do introductions so members can introduce themselves
please.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:02:23
Patrick. Good afternoon I'm Councillor Patrick Coleman and I represent the Stratton Ward ofSyrinsister. Good afternoon I'm Councillor David Fowles I represent
Councillor David Fowles - 0:02:33
the Colne ValleyCouncillor Gary Selwyn - 0:02:38
Ward. Good afternoon Gary Sherwin Syrinsister Watermore Ward. Good afternoon Andrew McLeanCouncillor Andrew Maclean - 0:02:43
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:02:48
from the Rizzingtons. Hello, Mark Harris from Abbey Ward, Syremchester. Good afternoon,Councillor Julia Judd - 0:02:54
Councillor Dilys Neill - 0:02:59
Julia Chad, Ermin Ward. Good afternoon, I'm Delis Neil, I represent Stow -on -the -Waldsin the north of the district. Afternoon, Daryl Corr and I represent
Councillor Daryl Corps - 0:03:06
Morton -in -Marsh, alsoThank you. I will now ask the officers to introduce themselves, starting with Helen.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:03:14
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:03:21
Rob Weaver, would you like to introduce yourself, please?Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:03:27
Officer - 0:03:30
Adrian. Good afternoon. I am Adrian Harding. I am the interim assistant director of planning.Officer - 0:03:36
Good afternoon, I am Graham Smith, I am a planning case officer.Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:03:41
Kira Thompson, Officer - 0:03:42
Good afternoon, I am Kyra Thompson, Democratic Services Officer.I am Julia Gibson, Democratic Services Officer.
Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:03:49
Officer - 0:03:52
I am Martin Perks, Principal Planning Officer.I am Harrison Bailey, Head of Planning Services.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:03:56
Thank you very much.We will now ask for any apologies.
1 Apologies
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:04:00
Yes, we have apologies from Councillor Watson and Councillor Bairn.Thank you. There are no substitutes for them? No. Okay.
2 Substitute Members
Declarations of interest. Has anybody got anything they want to declare?
Councillor Fowls.
3 Declarations of Interest
On the application due with Down Ampere, I was the ward member for Down Ampere from 2003
to 2019 and was very involved in some of the other sites that have been developed in Down
Ampere, but I have no pecuniary interest or on pecuniary, but I do recognise the members
of the public here, but I believe I can come to this meeting with an open mind, so I just
I thought I ought to mention that I have some history with the village.
Thank you, Councillor. That's sufficient. Thank you for declaring that.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:04:55
Thank you. Any other declarations?Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:04:56
Move on to the minutes of the last meeting.4 Minutes
I mean, only, only, I mean, it's probably a stupid thing to say,
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:05:08
but the second application is a fellow Councillor.And I thought that should be on record.
Thank you.
Minutes, any comments on minutes?
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:05:20
No?Chair, if I may, just to say that the normal practice is
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 0:05:27
to indicate positions of chair and vice chair in the minutes.In this case, I don't think it's too much of a problem
because it says I chaired the meeting further down.
I did have one spelling correction on page 7, the third paragraph.
The last sentence, concerns were shared, not concerns were shared.
I will stop there.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:05:58
Thank you for noting that.Chair's announcements, just got two.
We're still sorting out the trading about the national planning policy framework.
Work is doing that at the moment and we should have it for you very shortly, we hope.
The second one is I've asked Adrian Harding and Richard McAllister to join us today so
I can thank them because they finish at the end of this month.
Unfortunately Richard can't be here but I think he's watching online, so hopefully.
I would like to thank both of them on behalf of the committee for all the work they have done.
It has been absolutely amazing.
I think it is incredible that you can come to a council and pick things up to speed you up.
You are both done and able to give us advice and recommendations.
I am personally grateful because you have always been so helpful to me, both of you.
I have been so quick to answer emails because we get plenty.
and you've always given me great information and advice.
It's been very useful.
A chair can't carry on unless he's got offices backing him up.
So, to both of you, thank you very much.
I wish you all the best.
Don't forget the Cotswolds.
I'm sure I remember working in this beautiful area.
So we wish you all the best in whatever you do.
So can I ask Mr Shubair an appreciation please for both of them?
APPLAUSE
Adrian, would you like to say a few words?
Thank you, chair.
Officer - 0:07:31
It's been great to work with you all too.I believe it's 364 days to the day since I first met you all and we had our committee
together.
It's been some very interesting applications we've had to consider.
But, yes, we hope that you sort of work successfully in the future.
So thank you from Richard and I.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Richard.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:08:01
Hopefully you are watching online.OK, thank you.
We are now to item 6, public questions.
Do we have any public questions?
Members questions?
None of those either.
Right, we will now move on to the first application.
Schedule of Applications
Oh, I forgot.
We have not voted on the minutes have we?
No, thank you.
Can somebody propose the minutes please?
Councillor Harris?
Councillor McLean seconded.
Can you now vote on those minutes please?
Councillor David Fowles - 0:08:32
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:09:11
Those minutes are approved.We will now move back to the first application.
This is for the erection of 13 affordable homes with associated works at land west of
Down Amity Football Club, Broadlea's Down Amity.
The applicant is Bronford Housing Group, the agent is McLaughlin Planning, Case Officer
Martin Perks, Ward Member is Councillor Lisa Spivey.
Recommendation is permit subject to the following.
We have had quite a few late papers.
Members want time to read those?
Yes, please.
No?
Anybody?
Yes.
Just a little bit.
Anybody want time to do that?
Yes.
Yes, okay.
Councillor David Fowles - 0:09:56
..
.
.
.
.
.
Are we ready to proceed, members?
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:13:45
Yes, OK.8 24/01608/FUL - Land West of Down Ampney Football Club
So I will now ask the case officer to give us an update on his report.
Thank you, Martin.
Thank you, Chair.
Officer - 0:13:56
Just to clarify, the late pages were, I think, the Cabinet minutes from 2022 regarding theCouncil's direction of travel regarding this site and also the email from correspondence
from Councillor Spivey, which we received this morning.
So hopefully you both had a chance to look at those.
I'll go through the slides.
I'll bring it up on the screen.
There we go.
The application sites are outlined in red.
Northern edge of the village of Down Amity,
which is a principal settlement in the local plan.
There's a post -war housing to its south
and football ground, recreation ground
to the north of the site.
The application site is hatched in pink salmon colour.
Development boundary in the local plan is highlighted in green.
The area in green is where the new housing would go.
The area to the eastern part of the site is where the car parking and access route would
be.
So all the new houses is within the local plan development boundary.
Looking towards the site, the lockup garages which would be removed.
The clubhouse is on the right with the post wall housing to the left.
Again looking south from the road.
The housing to the south of the application site which is fairly uniform, date from 1950s.
The clubhouse building, put wall down to its north.
Looking across the northern boundary of the site from the road to the east, all the trees would be retained.
That's the application site where the housing would go, the southern part of it.
This was taken last June, so last summer when the, as you can see, the extent of the vegetation there.
The housing layout, it's two rows of properties with a balancing pond play area on the southern
part of the site, which is the left of that illustration.
There's also a play area open space on the northwestern part of the site, which is in
the eastern part of that drawing.
Again, this is an artist's impression of the proposed development showing fairly contemporary
interpretation of the Cotswolds building forms with dry stone walling and natural stone.
And again, artist's impression of the proposed development.
And the layout as shown.
Parking would be 13 spaces.
There is one parking space per unit on site, 13 spaces for each of the units off site and
four visit parking spaces.
That's it.
Thank you.
Thank you, Martin.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:16:47
Now I invite public speakers to come forward, please.I have got Councillor Richard Busby, Jeffrey Tappan, Chris Moore and Rob Weaver.
If you would like to come forward please.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:17:30
The first speaker we have is Councillor Richard Busby.If you could use the microphone when you speak, please.
You have three minutes.
Town/Parish Council - 0:17:45
Good afternoon.I am here today not to reject to the building of social housing in our village but to reject
to this particular development because the nature and scope rides roughshod over the
Dan Ampley neighbourhood development plan which was only made in 2024. Specific issues
relate to the housing and mixed density, parking, surface water and flooding and sewage. With
regard to mixed density, the planning officer has ignored the local plan policy H1 and the
neighbourhood plan objective H01. The proposed density far exceeds the current average of
12 .5 dwellings per hectare in the village and a reduction in the proposed number of
mix of properties would address the issues highlighted in this paper and meet the neighbourhood
plan objective H02.
With regard to parking and traffic, not only do the proposed parking arrangements contradict
the neighbourhood plan, they also conflict with the Cotswold District Council Parking
Standard Review dated April 2016.
In addition, the off -plot parking arrangements for plots 10 to 13 are considered to be a
danger to the occupiers of plots 1 to 6, because vehicles occupying the aforementioned bays
will either have to reverse in or out of their nominated bays in order to exit the site.
Surface water and flooding.
Down -ampnies experience serious flooding, including property flooding, as a result of
poor planning decisions, lack of site visits, poor maintenance and a failure to accurately
draw on local knowledge of the Paris Council.
In the Planning Office's conclusions relating to surface water, this report states, run -off
will then be conveyed to a 217 cubic metre attenuation basin before release to the existing
surface water drainage at 5 litres a second.
The Paris Council are not aware of any existing surface water drainage and the strategy stated
elsewhere in the report is infiltration.
Sewage, Dernapne is one of a number of neighbouring villages compromised by sewage discharge into
to our local rivers and streams due to a lack of capacity
at the Anthony St. Peter's series treatment plant.
With no commitment on the part of Thames Water
to either start or finish dates for the required upgrades,
this application must as a minimum be deferred
until the treatment plant has been upgraded.
General observation is this application is permitted
in the name of Bronford Housing Group,
whereas history shows that Cotswolds District Council
elected members have been the main sponsors.
As such, we consider inappropriate
this application has been submitted to the planning committee, the council cannot be
both judge and jury. Her proposal that this application be rejected and resubmitted with
a reduction in the proposed number of dwellings and that development should be deferred until
dates for the upgrade into the amply St Peter's series treatment plan is confirmed. Thank
you.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:20:34
Thank you and now Jeffrey Tuppin please.Objector - 0:20:40
Objection to this application as case officer continually ignoresoverrules the Dunamny neighbourhood plan in his report. It does not take into
account the unknown date of upgrading the Amptey St. Peter sewage plant and
there is a conflict of interest when a CDC case officer is recommending on an
application involving land owned by his employer, CDC.
Density of this site is far too high and must take into account the neighbourhood plan average
of 12 .5 dwellings per acre.
Density at the edge of a development boundary should be lower than in the centre.
Down Ampey is a rural village and not a town or suburb.
Importantly, density is not set by NPPF but by negotiation.
CDC have imposed a density regardless of several attempts for discussion.
Dan Ampney has only 17 people on the waiting list for affordable homes, but 26 are being
built now.
To have all houses planned for one site as affordable does not agree with the neighbourhood
plan or CDC's policies, which require developments to have a mix of suitable housing in both
market and affordable housing.
Neighbourhood plan is overridden in Paris 10, 17, 18, 22, 23 and 25.
Site layout is too crammed. Neighbourhood plan clearly states no car parking in front of houses.
Parking design is poor. For example, how do cars parked in bays 10, 11, 12 and 13 back out?
Page 63 on his report.
The Ampley St Peter sewage plant. It is well known that the sewage plant at Ampley St Peter cannot cope with the existing sewage, let alone 65 new dwellings being built.
This development must not go ahead until the Ampley St Peter plant has been upgraded.
Current proposals indicate delivery around 27 -28, but very unlikely as Thames Water has very serious funding problems.
Page 10 of the contractor report states, whilst this development may not correspond entirely
to the Dhanapni vernacular, it does respond to the vernacular of other towns in the surrounding
Cotswolds. Dhanapni is a rural village and not a town. There are no drawings showing
heights of finished land, roads, houses. In practice in the village, planned conditions
are often ignored and there is a very serious lack of enforcement by CDC on the developments
been constructed now, which must be dealt with.
Propose.
Reject application.
Redesign to nine dwellings, including market starter homes.
Car places beside the house.
Resubmit when the Anthony St Peter plant has started.
Remember this is a rural village.
The Dan Hammany neighbourhood plan is a legal document and not a list of aspirations.
If the neighbourhood plan is continued ignored, as seems to be the case, there is no point
and having it and it might as well be consigned to the bin.
Thanks very much.
Thank you.
Next, we have the joint presentation
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:23:36
by Chris Moore and Rob Weaver.So, you're speaking first, Rob.
Objector - 0:23:41
Yeah, thank you, Chair.And just to make it clear, members,
I'm here in absence of Alan Hope,
the Strategic Housing Manager.
And so I was just gonna say a few words
about the partnership approach
that has been demonstrated
through the council working closely with Bromford.
So the council have worked very closely with Bromford,
one of the largest housing associations in the UK to bring forward a development that
meets the council's key priority of delivering good quality housing that is genuinely affordable.
The homes will be owned and managed by Bromford Housing Association with the vision to invest
in homes and relationships so that people can thrive. Bromford is already working with
the council as a long -term partner in the delivery of affordable homes and as a social
landlord, Bromford becomes a long -term stakeholder in the local community.
This project and partnership builds on the 2022 collaboration agreement between
Bromford and Cotswold District Council to facilitate the development of highly
Applicant/Agent - 0:24:38
sustainable affordable homes in the area. There has been extensive communityengagement over the last three years which is critical in relation to
understanding local needs, concerns and opportunities. All 13 homes will be a
100 % social rented units and include a play area and open space. A financial contribution
will also be made for school transport, so getting planning permission on this site really
will make a difference. This scheme is a perfect example of how great partnerships can deliver
sustainable development and much needed affordable housing in the Cotswold district. The council
is committed to delivering more truly affordable homes and this is exactly the kind of partnership
working approach that we need to replicate across the district. Thank you.
Applicant/Agent - 0:25:25
Good afternoon. My name is Chris Moore. I'm the agent for the application. After proactivecollaboration with the planning department, we welcome the recommendation to approve permission.
The officers report provided to members offers a detailed analysis and I do not wish to repeat
these. Rather, I intend to highlight some of the key matters which we believe should
into your deliberation.
The Cotswolds is facing two urgent crises,
a shortage of affordable homes and the escalating impact
of climate change.
The development before you seeks to tackle both.
On affordable housing, the proposed development
will be 100 % affordable, social rented housing
in a mix of two and three bedroom homes.
As noted in the officer's reports,
the Cotswold is one of the biggest
gaps between the average income and house
prices in the country.
On a local level, the type of affordable housing offered
is also different tenure of what has been previously allowed,
helping secure a wider, more balanced mix of affordable housing in the parish.
On climate emergency, the proposal has been designed with a fabric -first approach,
ensuring the delivery of a highly sustainable development.
This is combined with the provision of renewable energy sources for each dwelling,
which in practical terms will mean reduced energy bills and lower running costs for future occupiers,
helping combat the risk of fuel poverty.
I also want to acknowledge comments received on foul and surface water drainage.
The applicant is in direct contact with the LLFA.
Sorry, Crispus, your time is up.
Sorry about that.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:26:44
No problem. Thank you.If you could all return to your seats, please.
Helen Blundell, Legal Services - 0:27:04
Members, wait until I present.A couple of issues have been raised about whether or not
a conflict of interest to bar that this committee is determining an application for planning
relating partially to its own land. The law is quite clear and this won't be the first
or the last time we have had an application for planning commission relating to council
owned land before you. It is entirely legal and appropriate for you to determine an application
for planning commission for land that the council owns, either partially or wholly.
The 1992 regulations make that clear. So the general principle is as long as you don't
have one committee that deals with management of land and also granting planning permission,
then you can, you're deemed to be separate entities and you're determining the application
independently. Of course, if any of you has expressed a strong opinion, either way, or
predetermined it, then that's an exception, but I don't think that's the case here.
Councillor Harris.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:27:59
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:28:01
What, can I ask Helen or one of your colleagues what the appeal process is? So if we wereto reject this application against our office's advice.
And then it was appealed.
We'd had this rather bizarre situation, this committee rejecting it,
but then it going to appeal and some members of the council supporting it.
So I wonder where that would put us.
Would we have to bear the costs?
Well, obviously we would.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 0:28:36
The appeal process would be the same as for any other application, they are two separateentities of the council but in principle yes it would obviously depend on the relationship
between or any contracts or arrangements between the council and Bromford but yes in principle
it would be the same process.
We have had that situation before in the past.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:28:55
Councillor Fouts.Councillor David Fowles - 0:29:00
When I said earlier that I was the ward member for this village, I also lived in the village,so I know this village very, very well, and so I fully intend to keep an open mind, but
I have knowledge that perhaps other members of this community don't have.
Firstly I'd like to ask, on the additional papers, they're not numbered, but let's just
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:29:25
say three pages in it says consultation therefore commenced in May andCouncillor David Fowles - 0:29:29
further public engagementin August and September. This approach with local people involved in the early design
stage rather than final drawings have been prepared, have been well received. Well, just
heard from a member of the public and member of the parish council which I would suggest
that that's diametrically opposed to being well received. So could someone just explain
what kind of engagement there has been with the parish council and the community.
That's question number one.
Question number two is this village found itself as one of the principal settlements.
We don't need to go into the history but it is rather bizarre, always has been that Down
Antley became a principal settlement compared with places like Fairford.
It has huge amount of development there and they went to a great deal of trouble to do
two things.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:30:21
Councillor David Fowles - 0:30:26
They were the first to have a design code and they were one of the first to write aneighbourhood development plan.
So it appears that this scheme is contrary to the neighbourhood development plan which
has weight.
So could someone please confirm whether a, it is contrary to it and b, what weight we
should give to it.
And lastly, my third question is in relation to Thames Water.
Thames Water, there are huge problems with Thames Water in Down Antony and that whole
area has been articulated. I'd like to know what kind of commitment we're going to get
from Thames Water. So that's three questions. Thank you, Chen.
Officer - 0:31:02
Regarding the first question, the additional pages relates to cabinet minutes relatingto 2022. So that was the council's processes leading up to the current application. I wasn't
involved in that so I can't answer that. All I know is they would have what it
stated there and the processes that housing and the council would have gone
through would have been normally to go through a public consultation exercise
speak to the parish. I can't comment formally whether that happened or not
but that this application came in I've determined this application as it stands
before me. Pre -app didn't come in for it. I delayed bringing this to committee for
three or four months because the County Hall councillor Alan Hope the strategic
housing manager wanted to in Bronford were advised to contact and engage more
with the parish council so I don't again that's something they undertook I
believe so there has been some ongoing discussions and that's the reason why
there's been a slight delay in bringing this to committee but it's not something
as offices we've been involved in in terms of planning offices and
determination is application that's a separate process for for the council
involved in the sale or the lease of the land. The second point
regarding the neighbourhood plan, I've addressed the neighbourhood plan policies in the
report and explained the proposal isn't contrary to the policies of the
neighbourhood plan. In detail I'll explain that in terms of why we consider that
the proposal is in accordance with both the local plan and the neighbourhood plan.
So with respect to what's been said by the speakers, no officers disagree with that.
We do feel it complies with the guidance and the policies in the neighbourhood plan.
With regard to the third question, which Temswater, again that's addressed in the report,
Temswater set out a timeframe for doing the works at Amne Peter, St Peter, so its treatment works.
That's now, they've said, is 2028.
So there is a mechanism in place to ensure that upgrades are going to take place and the conditions attached to this decision, if it was granted permission,
would put that mechanism in place saying no occupation until that upgrade has been done or a phasing plan has been agreed with Thames Water.
So there are mechanisms in place to address that issue and ensure the situation won't get any worse.
In addition, we've recommended a five -year permission in this instance rather than a three -year permission.
So that gives the applicant, from housing as well, more time to address the surface
water issue rather than potentially having to rush something through to try and meet
a deadline in the future.
So I think we have been reasonable and we are trying to address the issues that have
been raised and hopefully that's set out in the report and answers your questions.
Right, thank you.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:33:46
I did think your questions were going to be legal rather than general because before wehave a general debate we have to hear the comments of the ward member which are going
be read out by the Democratic Services. Thank you.
Julia Gibson, Officer - 0:34:01
As the Water Member for the Ampneys and Hampton, I would like to put this response in for thePlanning Committee meeting on Wednesday 12 March. I have been aware of this site for
a number of years. It is an unsightly part of Down Ampney, rough ground covered in brambles
and generally neglecting. The garages at the front of the site are no longer in use, as
is the general practice of Bronfort
across their housing estates.
So all in all, the area is quite a derelict site
and doesn't add anything to the setting of the football
clubhouse and pitches.
So I'm in favour of developing this site for much needed,
good quality housing.
Down Ampey was selected as a principal settlement
as part of the local plan 2018 to 2031.
And although sites were allocated,
it is only in the last couple of years,
and this last year in particular,
those sites are being built out.
This intensity of building in a small rural village
has caused upheaval, and with one development in principle,
there is a serious outstanding flooding issues
which need to be resolved.
This has taken its toll on the residents of Downhampney
in terms of trucks coming in and out of the village,
the streets being muddy, and the general disruption
that building work entails.
The parish council have borne the brunt
of residents complaints, and have endeavoured
to deal with these daily issues as best they can.
So I appreciate that yet another development is probably
not a welcome prospect.
I also note that the parish council has used expertise
within the village to advise on matters of drainage and sewage
pollution.
And like many communities across the Cotswolds,
people of Down Ampney are appalled
at times waters dumping of sewage
into our beautiful waterways.
And the village has seen the direct impact
of this pollution. They have been persistent campaigners for upgrades to the sewage treatment
works and have been actively involved for many years. Thus, their concerns relating
to flooding and sewage pollution are to be listened to and I hope that by having no occupation
clause that we can use this as further leverage with Thames Water to ensure that the upgrade
at Antley St Peter STW is carried out ASAP. I looked again at the plans for these homes
and I think that they are a great example of using traditional cotswold building materials in a modern way
and hope that they will truly begin to represent the new cotswold vernacular and set an example for other developments.
These are well designed to include many green features and their zero carbon tag is one that the council should be proud of.
I especially like the introduction of a porch area to leave muddy shoes and the chimney stack light well, which gives these homes something extra.
I've read that to date we haven't been able to tie in an upgrade to the football club building at the same time.
But I know that the parish council has exciting plans for this part of the village and I think that these homes for social rent,
which the district is so desperate for, will enhance the offering and be the start of regenerating this part of the village.
The communal green space will be a big upgrade from the current cracked tarmac.
I note the parish council's concern over the density of this site.
Given that the neighbouring estates, Broadleys and Lindenley, I don't think that 13 homes
is too many.
These homes will provide the safe, affordable, secure homes for families who will hopefully
enjoy living in this friendly village and contribute to its community.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:37:29
Questions?We've got Councillor Judd.
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:37:36
Thank you, Chair. May I ask Martin, the NDP, how much weight does it have? Presumably,NDPs have to comply with the local plan before they are passed and possibly include things
which wouldn't be in the local plan. Presumably, that is the whole point of an NDP.
Officer - 0:38:00
Yes, the neighbourhood plan is part of the development plan for the district, so it carriesthe same way as the local plan. It's the starting point for the determination of the application
along the local plan. When they're developed they should be consistent with the strategy
set out in the local plan, but they can be more detailed in terms of local issues and
things like that, and things they want to address. But yes, it forms part of the development
plan and therefore the same way as the local plan.
Councillor Julia Judd - 0:38:25
Can I expand on that a bit? If there are policies within the neighbourhood development plansaying that they do not want cars parked in front of houses and they don't want such a
density of affordable homes in one place in one area, because obviously one can't assume
that everybody who wants an affordable home wants to live in Darnapne, there are other
places they might like to live. Have the concerns of the neighbourhood development plan been
ignored in this application?
Officer - 0:39:00
No, they are not ignored. In terms of the local plan you have to look at the local planas a whole, all the policies in the round as a whole. There will be some instances when
we look at the local plan in isolation for example. There will be some instances where
there is a potential conflict with one policy but as a whole it is fine, it accords with
principles of the local plan and it's the same in this instance there may be
an area within the neighbourhood plan which it isn't totally consistent with
but you then look at it against the local plan the MPPF and guide policy
and guidance and you make a judgment in the round taking everything into
consideration. Now the the argument about parking and where that's located
Gloucester County Council highways have looked at it and consider that safe and
fine so there's no highway safety objection from the statutory
consultee and deals with that matter. While there may be a preference for
parking not to be in front of a driveway which I don't think it is, it's
put to one side the street in front. I mean it's fairly common for housing
estates to have driveways that go straight onto a road, onto a housing
estate road. That's a fairly common feature, this is no different to that kind of
arrangement. So again the highways have looked at that and consider that to be
acceptable. The local plan allocates this as set a guide figure of 10. It doesn't
mean that's rigid, we have to look at it on its own merits in terms of numbers.
Having regard to the MPPF which says we should be making full use of sites
and seeking the best value of them in terms of development, again the MPPF
supports more high density development but also the density development isn't
out of character with the adjoining development next to it. It's fairly consistent with that
in terms of housing numbers and the arrangement, the linear arrangement of buildings is consistent
with that as well. The Down Amity neighbourhood plan or the design guide has three character
areas for the village. They're quite distinct so I think it's very difficult to say that
12 and a half hectare, dwellings per hectare is consistent throughout the village. It's
different in different parts of the village and this is consistent with the density of
development in this part of the settlement and bearing in mind what it
is at the moment with the lock of garages and an arid wasteland we think
this is a good and efficient use of the site for this particular form of
development in terms of numbers well we whether it's appropriate that they're
all affordable rent or all social rent sorry we have to make a judgment in the
context of the village as a whole is it appropriate for all these to be social
rented units and we think it is given the housing needs of this particular
district the mix of housing within the settlement as a whole at the moment as
well and I think it does create a balanced form of development which is
respectful of the character and appearance of this part of the village.
Thank you very much Martin.
Councillor McLean.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:41:54
Councillor Andrew Maclean - 0:41:58
Thank you Martin. Two things. The first is surface water. Our objector raised the point thatit looks a bit inconsistent and it does to me because the report talks about the outflow
from the pond being pumped and then it goes on to say the appropriate response is infiltration
in that area.
So can you just talk me through that because the report just seemed to have internal inconsistencies
to my eyes.
The intention is that surface water on the site would drain to the
Officer - 0:42:27
attenuation pond atthe southern edge of the site.
it would then be released at a controlled rate, below existing greenfield run -off rates,
to a sewer, which would either be operated by the county council or Tents Water. So that's
where it would go, but it goes out at a controlled rate. Because of the high water table, infiltration
isn't likely to work very well in this location, and that's one of the issues that AILFA have
got at the moment. It's the bottom of the attenuation lake isn't one metre above the
water table so they need more details of how that's going to work and that's where the
delay is at the moment with the LLFA but in principle they're happy with the attenuation
basin and then it's discharged into the mains network.
The objects seem to think there wasn't a mains network but there is one.
There is a pipe, I think I heard there was an argument whether it was run by terms of
water or county council GCC so that's where the another issue arises but yes that was the intention.
My second question was about the solar panels because I see the MOD have raised objections
to the fact they might have nesting pigeons underneath them.
Councillor Andrew Maclean - 0:43:37
But every modern site I've seen that has solar panels, they have in -roof solar, so they areactually flush with the roof and therefore there's no chance of birds nesting.
I mean, can't we just stipulate that that's how these solar panels would be?
I assume they'll be done that way anyway.
Officer - 0:43:52
Yes, I think because it was the MOD and they were suggesting that condition, I didn't reallywant to go against them in case. I think if the applicant comes in as the condition, they've
agreed to the condition and provides the details that are going to be flushed, then that's
fine. There wouldn't be an issue there. But it seems a bit serious in some ways, putting
the condition on, but that's what the MOD, they wouldn't have raised it if they didn't
think it was an issue of birds congregating under there and flocking potentially affecting
aircraft but rather that condition can't we stipulate they should be in rusola
because I think they would look so much better with the design and it's the more
modern way to do things possibly I mean that would be a member a matter for
members if you wanted to have that as a condition instead of the other one
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:44:40
Councillor Gary Selwyn - 0:44:42
right cancer so in thank you chair just picking up on the no occupancy caveatuntil the discharge etc has been agreed is there any danger of us should this
be permitted completing the build and find that it can't be occupied because
Thames water or whoever hasn't done the relevant work that we expect it to be
done and I'll come back another question if I may just after that's the standard
Officer - 0:45:11
kind of condition that we tend to get with Thames from Thames water and 7Trent water to be honest for new developments when they say there isn't
sufficient capacity so that's we've never had an issue previously I'm aware
with it because the developer is aware also that they can't occupy the wouldn't
build the houses if they've not been able to get a connection anyway so and
also there's a building control issue in terms of you can't get occupation if you
could if you haven't got connection to a foul treatment anyway so there's
there's other issues there that would arise anyway.
But no, I think that condition's fairly standard
from Thames Water and we've attached it
to quite a few developments.
They have a duty to connect development to their systems.
It's a statutory duty under other legislation.
So the moment the developer goes to them
and asks for a connection,
it's something Thames Water have to do anyway
and make capacity for it.
So clearly it's either up to Thames Water to do it
as part of their program or the developer
I can speak to terms of order through the section 106 agreement with terms of order
and try and speed up the process but that's usually a matter between the developer and
terms of order.
Councillor Gary Selwyn - 0:46:22
Thank you. Looking at the map on a plan on page 59 and I'm looking at this with enormousenthusiasm probably incorrectly but if you look at the bottom picture from what I can
from the series of maps. The very bottom picture which shows the proposed north elevation,
which is the fold out map on page 59, the closure to the left of the house is the refuse
area which looks to be sealed off and then to the right of that there is a smaller external
cupboard type object which based on the plans appears to be the air source heat pump. Now
I am thrilled because what this picture shows me is that we are sealing off, not for display
outside people's front doors, the air source heat pump.
And that's not only on that particular map, but it's also shown on...
If I could find it, we've been generously given a great number of clowns here.
Yes, if you look at for example on page 55 on the extreme right hand side
the first
sort of small blue doors are where the refuse goes
and then you can just see I believe next to it a smaller what looks like a
covered area which I assume is where the air source heat pump will go
so sorry for the fairly lengthy question there is a plan showing a north elevation
that in fact you can see that again on page 51
the houses at the top there you can see a covered area and then a smaller
covered area is that the air source heat pump is it actually covered up finally
or is it still a piece of lumpy bare metal outside people's front doors and
Officer - 0:48:22
the air source heat pumps are covered if you look on the site location planproposed site layout got the houses and it's got a yellow area and then a brown
area where the SLC pops are going. The problem is I haven't got the page numbers.
This is page 63.
Yes, page 63.
And that also appears on the CGI pictures, like you mentioned, the dry stone walling
with the brown doors coming out the front of the property. That is where the SLC pops
would be.
So they are concealed?
According to these drawings, yes.
Because this is actually a first as far as I'm aware,
because every air source heat pump I've seen,
including all the steadings development,
they are all directly outside people's front doors
with metal and pipe showing.
I thought this was a tremendous enhancement.
I didn't know that the technology had caught up with it yet
and that we could now conceal them.
Councillor Gary Selwyn - 0:49:21
So for me, I know that this particular plan is importantand this is a fundamental improvement to the whole process in my view.
if that is the case which is why I'm publicly asking the question.
Officer - 0:49:32
They are shown on the plans as being internally within that space.Whether the applicant can achieve that in the longer run, I don't know.
They are shown, that's what the plans show and that's what would be approved.
P63 shows where they are.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:49:47
Councilman O 'Carris.Thank you.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:49:56
I had a look on the website and it's contained within the report the various objections andI think quite a few have been addressed.
There were four objections and there's one in favour.
The one in favour and in the interests of transparency, it wasn't from somebody within
the village, but they comment on the 50 degree roof pitch and you mentioned it in your report,
I can't find, and I may be wrong, I couldn't find a response to it.
That's my first question.
Is there a thought on that or that it doesn't necessarily tie to the Cotswold vernacular?
Officer - 0:50:35
The 50 degrees usually if you're doing like natural stone or artificial stone roof type,just to carry the weight and make sure the weatherproofing, that's a vernacular type
of roof pitch.
If you go in blue slate then generally it goes 45 degrees and below.
So it would generally be shallower if you are going for a blue slate roof.
Thanks very much.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:50:54
I look to the other concerns and they tend to be, well, there is water surface drainage from most of them, policy, we have addressed that.The fact that this is impartial, two of them commented on.
But the business about the only St Peter's sewage works,
apparently that's not going to be dealt with until 2027.
We're kind of halfway through 2025 now.
And in my experience at any rate,
takes a hell of a lot longer than 18 months
to build new developments from when permission is given
and when people start to move in.
So I wonder if in our experience in the area,
When we expect to see people moving into these these houses I
Officer - 0:51:42
Don't know I mean all I know is there's still obviously contracts to be signed with this council in terms of the transfer the landAnd the section 106 agreements that will take a little while
then we have to go through all the various condition compliance and starting on sites and
Yeah, I mean it would take take a little while. I'd be surprised if anything was
ready for occupation within a year, to be honest.
That's just me guessing generally.
We know that the state has taken five years after permission to when I think the first house was occupied.
Councillor Mark Harris - 0:52:11
We know it's a matter of years, not months.Okay, thanks very much.
I think that's it.
Oh, very...
No, no, that's it.
Thank you.
Councillor Fowlers.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:52:23
Councillor David Fowles - 0:52:26
I recognize that Rob Weaver was here on behalf of Alan Hope, but I wondered if someone couldanswer my question in relation to the housing need as it was referred to by one of the,
I think it was the parish council, there was only 17 people in Down Antony on the register
just to articulate the housing.
I know we have a need across the district, but specifically for Down Antony, how many
people we have on the register.
Secondly, how many affordable houses do we already have in Down Antony, because my understanding
is it has got quite a few.
And thirdly, could someone give me a flavour and members of flavour of how many sites there
are in Down Ampley at the moment which are all drawing upon this same Thames
Water system. As I understand it there are at least three active developments
in that village at the moment comprising of getting on for 70 houses. Does anyone
have a feel for that? And this will be adding on to that. So it's number of
People on the list, how many houses we have in Down Amity already and then how many other
developments there are?
I don't necessarily expect you to be able to answer those specifically.
I would just like to get a...
No, I will give you an idea.
The site is an allocated site for housing in the local plan.
It's not the case, it has to meet the specific needs of Down Amity in terms of affordable
housing provision.
It's intended to meet the full house of that we have in the district. It's not a rural exception
So unlike the one in star on the world we had recently which was a rural exception site
And the reason you allow that was because it was meeting the specific housing needs of stone on the world
Because this is an allocated site
We're looking at essentially it's part of out the allocations across the district which are intended to meet the housing needs problems
But the district as a whole not withstanding that section 106 agreement would get first offer
and first refusal to people who live in the parish, then to neighbouring parishes and then beyond that.
So it's important to realise this is looking at not just meeting the needs specifically of Down Amity,
but it's also part of the council's need for affordable housing in general.
As I said in the report, the local plan inspector in 2018 identified that at that stage,
the council probably had a need of 157 houses per year in terms of meeting
affordable to meet its affordable housing needs the policies work
potentially going to provide hundred houses per year so if you take that over
six to seven years we're 57 houses short each year over that time in terms of
delivery of affordable housing so therefore when we do get allocated sites and sites
like this this can make quite a significant contribution to addressing
that need we have across not just Dine Amity but the district as a whole
And because Donatney is a principal settlement therefore you will have allocated sites and they will be addressing some of the needs that extend outside
Donatney. That's the same as when we allow housing in Sirencester, Morton, in Marsh, whatever. They will sometimes take on, you know,
they're there to meet a wider housing need and not just the needs of that particular parish. So
yes, and there is
the housing strategy manager has come back to me and then said there is a need for this level of housing as well in this area.
So he's happy with the sizes the two and three bedroom sizes are appropriate as well for the houses
We need and therefore that is one of the reasons
Why I think I are supportive of this and I did have a picture
The other side so
There are the three other sites that I refer to in the report so
One on the east is the nine at Rook tree and then the one in the middle the 44
and then the one at the one to the south.
So those three are currently being built out at the moment.
But in terms of, so yes, the village has got quite a few housing schemes going on at the
moment.
But up until those started, the village has only had five completions in the period 13
years up to 2024.
If we look at comparable villages elsewhere in the district, then over a similar period
Downhamley's got, just get my glasses, sorry, 69 completions and commitments, similar size
settlements.
Blockley's got 59, Northledge 89, Willersey 97, Mickleton 266, Upper Islington 425.
So in comparable terms, Downhamley has had far fewer houses than a lot of equivalent
principal settlements in this district.
So yeah.
Just for members benefit, if I may, Chairman, that photograph is pretty out of date because
that top dot to the left is actually a development site. It's virtually completely built out
now if you drive into Down Amby connecting what is known as Broadleaves where the site
is and the rest of the village just for members benefit.
Thank you.
And it's got 44 houses on it.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 0:57:33
Councillor Judd.Councillor David Fowles - 0:57:36
Thank you, Chair. I'm so sorry to go over that ground that we seem to have already goneover, but I still don't have an understanding of the weight of the consultation response
from Thames Water and the local flood authority. What I'm confused about is that having read
the Thames Water consultation response and the fact that that is unresolved, how the
local Flood Authority and the Thames Water response come to a situation whereby these
houses can actually function within the law. I'm just confused, how can we grant planning
permission for something that can't be achieved at the moment?
The two are different.
The LLFA look at surface water drainage, not foul water.
All the LLFA are doing is surface water drainage and how surface water will drain from the
site or be managed on the site.
That's to do with the balancing problem.
That's one matter.
That's why we're saying at the moment no objection permits subject to them raising no objection.
So we just want those details addressed by the LLFA.
And then from a technical point of view,
we then consider the surface water drainage issue has been addressed,
subject to conditions requiring all that to be done.
In terms of water, deal with water supply, which they're happy with, and disposal of foul water.
They're happy the pipe network is satisfactory to accommodate this development.
The issue is the treatment plant hasn't got capacity to deal with this extra flow from these houses.
They have requested a condition stating there is no occupation until that is upgraded or
put in place or there is a phasing programme in Greed.
That is consistent with what the neighbourhood plan policy says as well.
So it is not conflicting with what the neighbourhood plan policy says.
Condition that has come from Thames Water is a fairly standard one.
We have had it in Fairford, Morton and Marsh.
You just need to make sure that you have a mechanism in place that will prevent occupation
until that is done.
And that's the standard thing when you attach most conditions.
You know, you want highway improvement works, you want landscaping, you want other things,
then you're always reliant on the applicant or, you know, third party doing those works.
So it's kind of part and parcel of that process.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:00:12
Councillor David Fowles - 1:00:13
You've absolutely hit the nail on the head, Martin.That's what worries me, is that we cannot control the mechanism for them to stick to
the conditions.
And if the housing ... I ask the local authority and the Housing Association are, put it this
way, enthusiastically encouraged by government policy to get people living in these houses
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:00:39
at the expense of breaking the conditions,on the planning permission that has been requested today,
we seem to be, as a council, toothless
in doing something about that.
Or is there any help?
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:00:56
Is there any support that this district council can getCouncillor Julia Judd - 1:01:00
in a situation like that from any other authority?Officer - 1:01:07
Well, we are the landowner, and the applicant will have to enterinto a separate legal contract with this council regarding the lease and taking over this land.
So there can be mechanisms potentially put in that contract that says,
takes further account of the drainage issues of the treatment plant.
I mean, that's something I'd have to discuss with the people involved in the property team
and whatever, but that gives you the extra reassurance in terms of how
that was dealt with as well on top of the condition.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:01:31
Thank you.Colm Coleman.
Well, thank you, Chair.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:01:36
I just wanted to check because I don't quite understand the difficulty here.I'll refer to page 41.
This is a question to our planning officer.
Condition 6 says no dwelling hereby permitted can be occupied until all sewage works upgrades
required to accommodate additional flows from the development are completed or a development
and infrastructure phase in plans been agreed in writing with Thames Water and no occupation
then should take place other than in accordance with that phasing plan.
Now that condition seems to me to be clearly written.
Is that in fact full of holes?
Incidentally, going along with that, the next condition, which is a construction phase surface
water plan, also has to be submitted and approved in writing this time before a brick is laid
or a spade is dug.
Is that full of holes?
It seems to me these are pretty clear conditions.
Officer - 1:02:31
Like I say, they are the standard conditions we get from terms of water.Terms of water in most applications in new housing, 50 % of them say there is inadequate
capacity in their infrastructure and request a condition such as this and it is a fairly
standard condition that comes from them.
We have not had it challenged previously.
That is all I can say on that really.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:02:54
The other question following up the queries about social rented units, we've got paragraph1018 of your report on page 25, which does say fairly clearly that our two previous developments
with affordable housing included zero social rented units.
Is it reasonable to think that if a range of affordable types is required, that making
this development, social rented in its totality, will actually bring the balance closer to
where it probably should have been already?
Officer - 1:03:29
I mean I think it raises an important point in that sometimes affordable housing justgets discussed as a single entity. Well actually affordable housing can take quite a different
range of forms. It can be first homes, affordable rent, social rent, shared ownership and it's
important that you get, and people have different needs and it's important that you do have
a variety of tenures available to people to suit those needs. As I said in the report,
there isn't any social rented units in Dine -Annie at present time. This will add to the mix
of types of houses available in the settlement and contributes to the... and these will be
more affordable than first homes or affordable rented units, for example. So in the long
run we think it's a positive addition to the settlement in terms of providing an extra
housing mix into the village.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:04:19
So, Harris, Neil and then Chad again.Yeah, we're getting to lots and lots of questions.
I don't want to go over things.
I'm sorry, Darryl's third and Julie's fourth.
Yeah, we've got four more speakers.
After that, we're going to curtail questions.
So, get in quick.
I've got Mark Harris, Councillor, please.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:04:41
I quite often ask this question during applications.We can't refuse this permission because we don't trust Thames Water.
Because we don't.
Really, do we?
We don't trust them.
But it's not a reason for refusal.
And we can't refuse because we think we know more than highways experts about the status of the roads.
The reason we can't is because it goes straight to appeal and then we've wasted everybody's time.
The question is, that I have and I quite often ask,
is are you really comfortable that were this to come to appeal
you could defend it?
Sorry, no, because we'd have to ask you to defend it.
Yeah, that would be difficult.
You know what I'm asking, don't you?
I think the answer generally is if I thought we could defend
Officer - 1:05:31
this at appeal I'd be recommending refusal.I fully understand people's concerns about Thames Water.
I deal with numerous applications and it's not just here, it's a similar issue all across
the district.
We have to take it to face value, I'm afraid.
We have reasonable expectation that mechanisms are in place that will ensure that there will
be no greater harm.
If we didn't think that was going to work, then yes, potentially you could argue a case
against it.
But when the statutory body, who have a duty to connect their system, are saying that,
then I think it's very difficult for us to go take another direction.
Thank you.
Councillor Neill.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:06:12
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:06:14
Sorry Martin, I just wanted to clarify something that you said briefly earlier,which was to do with the transfer of the land from the council to Bromford.
So my understanding is that Bromford would have five years before they even needed to start building.
That's right, isn't it?
Yes, normally you have three years to implement information.
we intended to give them five years in this instance. So the council could still
retain ownership of the land? I don't know the contractual details but my
understanding is if members result to permit this subject to the various
things set out in the report then the transfer of the land in terms of
contracts would happen before the section 106 was signed. So that would
happen reasonably quickly but then in terms of how that's done in terms of
whether it's lease or the contract and the covenants within that, that's a matter for this council to do.
We wouldn't be hanging on to the land for five years waiting to see if Thames Water were going to come up with the goods, the exchange is going to come up with that?
No, not what I'm aware of. My understanding is the contract with the transfer of the land would happen before the section 106 is signed and then permission would follow that.
But Bronfort can hang on for five years waiting for Thames Water effectively?
Yes, ostensibly then, Bromford would have five years in which to implement the commission.
Just very quickly, there's a mention of the special area of conservation.
It says it's in a zone of influence. How far away is that?
You presumably think that this development is not going to have an adverse effect on that.
The zone of influence is the area in which new residential development potentially could generate occupiers who may go and visit that site
and they have an impact on it.
So it's within the zone of influence
and therefore the developer would have to pay,
I think it's about £1 for dwelling towards the fund
that will go for the management
of that special area conservation,
which is near Criclid, I think.
So that can be done through the Section 106 legal agreement.
Thank you.
Councillor Paul.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:08:19
Yeah, thank you.Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:08:22
I'm not trying to drag out the Thames water issue here again.It's just a very quick question.
Also, we've heard about the water treatment capacity
for this particular application that's before us today.
Do we know or is there any relevance to any conditions
for sewage upgrades for any current developments
taking place at the moment in Down Anthony?
I don't know.
Officer - 1:08:42
I know, as the Speaker said, there's ongoing drainage issueswith one of the sites, but I don't know whether that's
surface water rather than foul waste disposal.
I think that's because of one of the conditions that was dealt
with in a planning appeal.
or didn't talk about future maintenance or something.
But yeah, the other sites are for 10 and for nine,
respectively, so they wouldn't generally raise
massive issues in terms of surface water drainage issues.
I don't know in those issues.
I mean, I think you've got more experience.
I'd almost refer, obviously we've consulted
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:09:16
Thames Water on the application.I'd almost refer back to those Martins previously said.
They're the statutory body.
We've asked them about their capacity
and they've come back and said,
It is OK subject to their conditions.
As we previously said, we have to take that at face value.
They should consider that as part of their response.
Thank you.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:09:36
Councillor Judd, do you have a new question?Sorry, Chair.
I am banging on again.
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:09:41
I am going to change the subject.You will be pleased to hear that.
Martin, I wondered if it would be possible to recommend that the applicant puts forward
a very comprehensive traffic management plan if this application is approved and if it
gets built out. Because this site is at the top end of the village and looking at the
map it looks like all of the lorries are going to come right through past almost every single
house in the village. And there is a village school I believe so I would have thought that
it would be thoughtful to consult with the parish council and the village itself to stop
HGVs driving through the village during school hours and before 7 o 'clock in the morning,
not on Saturdays, not on Sundays, that sort of thing, but at least give the community
a chance to... I've looked at the map and whichever way you approach down there, you've
got to drive through another village. So I can't think that Marston Maisie or what's
diverted via those villages either, but I would have thought that some consideration
needs to be made to minimise pleas if the applicant could put that forward as a condition.
Officer - 1:11:05
It would have to come from members in terms of whether you wanted to vote and considerthat reasonable and meet the relevant tests in terms of being appropriate.
Finally, we will finish the questions.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:11:17
Normally when we have an applicationCouncillor David Fowles - 1:11:25
and we are concerned about the appeal process,this is slightly unusual since we own the site.
I am not sure whether Helen mentioned it,
but if we were to refuse this application,
is there a mechanism whereby we would take ourselves to appeal?
I take it that there isn't, so we own the site.
You did ask that, I didn't hear the answer.
So the answer is that there would be no appeal process.
Well, technically on the application form, Bronford Housing are the applicant.
You don't have to own the land to be the applicant, you just have to serve them.
So Bronford are the applicant, they just serve notice on the council of landowner,
so Bronford could lodge the appeal against the council.
Thank you.
Right, we'll move on to comments now please.
Councillor Harris.
Officer - 1:12:09
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:12:10
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:12:15
Thank you. Well, I think as long as there are conditions about the build out, I'm inclined to support this.There are 644 residents, I believe, in Down Ampere, and four have expressed their dissatisfaction.
It's unlikely to be built out by 2027, I think we've established, by which time we'll probably need even more social rented housing,
and the water treatment upgrade should be in place.
But we can't refuse permissions because we don't trust Thames Water
or that we believe we know more than highway experts.
I think it would be spineless of us to vote to reject it
in the hope that somebody else will make the decision.
So for that reason I'll be supporting it.
And I would like to recommend that we accept the officer's recommendation
if I have a seconder.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:13:01
That's a proposal then.Thank you.
Councillor Andrew Maclean - 1:13:09
I would be happy to second that.I really approve of this putting down a more social housing.
Actually, it is quite remarkable you have 17 people from that existing village already
having their names on the list.
So it is actually pretty close to meeting demand with a bit of spare capacity elsewhere.
I think that is really good.
I just want to thank the officers for including, having listened to me over many years, in
paragraph 10 .76 and 10 .29, a nod towards energy efficiency actually within the planning report.
It's a shame it didn't go into more technical details.
I would have loved to have seen a little bit more about how these houses perform, but thank
you for at least including something in there as part of this planning commission.
That's great.
And thirdly, I'd just like to recommend that we do add that condition about the solar, that it's in -roof solar,
because I just think it would enhance the view of these houses, and it's just something that's so easy, and they'll probably do it anyway.
Thank you.
I seem to remember that was in my condition.
No, that's not specific, is it?
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:14:13
Officer - 1:14:16
Just ask the details rather than specifically stating they're in -roof.I mean clearly it will be a little while before I can go back and discuss that with the applicant.
Councillor Jude.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:14:28
Thank you, me again.Councillor Julia Judd - 1:14:29
Yes, but clearly we all have massive, massive concerns about the water thing.There's no point in going there.
We're in a cleft stick, aren't we?
We're being promised by things that we can't prove one way or the other.
But it is wonderful to see an attractive development of affordable homes coming forward to the
Council.
It has its problems.
There are a lot of catch -22s with this application.
But I would request that the applicant is asked to put forward a really, really comprehensive
a well -considered traffic management plan.
And during construction, yeah.
I mean, it would be a waste of time for them to do it now, because things might change.
But yes, that's what I would say.
Please, thank you.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:15:33
Councillor David Fowles - 1:15:38
Thank you, Chairman. When I read the ward member's report and got to the bottom ofpage 1, I thought she was going to take the view that I'm about to try and articulate,
which is that this would not be an appropriate site to develop at this stage, so it's rather
unfortunate there is actually a page 2. I would just like to give you, before you make
your decision as a committee a flavor of down at me
Council Harris, I think said there's 644 residents in down at me and only four of them commented
When I moved into down at me there were under 400 people living there
There have been six major developments in down at me and the Thames water issue has been a problem in terms in that community
For the last 20 years if any of you had attended the meeting with the MP last weekend council Ross
sorry, Ros Savage, you would have heard that there is a major, major issue with flooding
and sewage, not just in Down Antley but the neighbouring villages because of the sewage
plant. We all know that Thames Water, people are backing off commenting on whether Thames
Water can be believed or not, so another question of whether Thames Water can be believed or
not, they simply have not got the resources to actually alter what's going on in this
community and the surrounding community. If you drive into that community at any
point where there's heavy rain, there's sewage in the street. It is
absolutely appalling and I feel for the residents of Down Antony as has been
articulated very well by the parish council, the objector and indeed
Councillor Spivey. I don't think there's an issue really to do with highways. I
think it all rests on Thames water and and and sewerage. I'd also like to make
another comment about that map. Those of you who know down amply, Broadleaves was social
housing and it principally still is social housing and it was cut off from the village,
it's now connected to the village. And we're now talking about adding another affordable
housing development with no other form of development in it because of the nature of
the site. And to me what we're in danger of doing is falling into the trap that we have
a huge challenge on our hands to find more housing.
And this is a wonderful site for that.
When you look at it on the surface, because it's disused garages,
and it looks pretty rough, and so on and so forth.
And it seems to me that there is no immediate need to develop this site.
It's not going to go away.
And I think that we should listen to the community,
listen to the parish council, and actually refuse this application.
And there's no pressure immediately to develop this site.
Thames Water will not do this in this.
I want that on record, I don't care who hears it, Thames Water are not going to improve that site.
So I certainly am, because of the concerns that I think one member had about my history in Down Amity,
I'm going to abstain from this, but I want to make it absolutely crystal clear that this development should not be taking place at this time.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:18:42
Just looking at condition 16 regarding the verge of getting rid of the panels,It just says the details have to demonstrate the underside of a panels would not be testable by birds
So that's a new condition, but so we have a proposal for character Harry's second very council to claim to permit this and we've got
Additional condition nothing counted should require a new construction management plan is that yes, please I don't want to put anybody under
Unnecessary work, but at the point of construction. I think it's essential that there is thoughtful
thought given to consideration for the village and the surrounding villages about HGV movements.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:19:20
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:19:28
I'm sorry.Councillor David Fowles - 1:19:44
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:20:08
I've never seen that before, but I think, thank you.That's very good to see these sort of conditions being attached.
And it's just, I recall we had something recently where conditions on landscaping, et cetera,
had not been enforced, and it would just be good to know.
This is just a comment.
I hope that there will be some supervision to make sure that these particular conditions,
which are so important, particularly if it's in a sensitive area,
I think it's very important that we make sure that these conditions are closely followed.
That's all.
Councillor Cawley, do you want to comment?
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:20:47
Yes, sorry, very quick one.And I'm sorry if I've missed it in the conditions.
Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:20:50
It's just in my ward in Moreton there's been a lot of problems with not having a proper adequate wheel wash for the trucks, especially during the winter time.Is that in the condition here, is it?
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:21:03
We can add that to the construction management plan.Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:21:09
Okay, thank you. And a comment was also it's refreshing to see only 13 houses being built,not hundreds and hundreds of houses. And socially rented houses.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:21:16
Okay, well, don't give them ideas. We'll go to the vote now. Recommendation is permitwith the addition of construction management plans. So we could vote, please.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:21:29
Councillor David Fowles - 1:21:31
It's about application, it's about application as permitted.Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:22:18
It's three now so I will have a ten minute comfort break.There will be a lot of people leaving.
8 24/01608/FUL - Land West of Down Ampney Football Club
Councillor David Fowles - 1:22:29
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:22:35
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:22:38
The next application is the erection of a firstCase officers Graham Smith board member is cancer Hodgkinson and the recommendation is to refuse
9 24/02125/FUL - The Barn Hills Farm
Right now it's the case officers to give a report please. Thank you
Officer - 1:23:17
Thank you chair. This is an application for the erection of a first floor extension of the dwelling known asThe barn it's at Carl's Hill
Chadwick
There's a minor amendment also proposed to the ground floor just to replace a window with the door.
The recommendation is that permission should be refused for the reasons stated in the office's report.
This is just the site location plan, so just to the north east of Chadworth.
Site plan showing the first floor extension proposed at the rear of the dwelling.
That's the plans as existing.
The plans as proposed.
If you can try and do a comparison, you can see the hatched area is the proposed roof.
That's a photograph showing the front elevation.
That's an elevation to the side and the front.
And that's the elevation to the front again.
And that's the side with the rear single -story.
Rear single -story.
And again.
These are some illustrations prepared by the applicant just to give a visual indication
of how the proposal would look.
That concludes the presentation.
Thank you very much.
Now we will invite public speakers.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:25:01
We have got Councillor David Broad, Helen Bridge, Jeremy Vithier.Come forward please.
First speaker is council.
David Broad.
Thank you.
So long.
I'm David Broad, Chairman of the Cheblis Parish Council, speaking for the
Town/Parish Council - 1:25:46
Cheblis Parish Council. First, I know Mr Stayer is a former member of theCheblis and Whittington Parish Councils. I usually see him in his overalls up to his arms in sheep or driving his pickup with a sheep trailer, but I had not met him for perhaps a year prior to today.
I know Mrs Teiss mentioned this rather more.
The Chebbers parish council has no objection in principle, subject to no unnecessary external
lighting to conform with the Chebbers parish dark skies policy, as this is in a prominent
position near the crest of the Chebbers valley.
That was our submission.
This refers to bright external lighting, security lighting, being prominent high on the valley
side, not the proposed structure being prominent.
Indeed, the barn is very well hidden behind a screen of very old, scruffy trees growing
on a very steep slope with no agricultural value and thus little incentive to fell them.
That is a dark grey band on the location plan on page 77.
In fact, from a public viewpoint it is quite hard to make out the barn at all.
Even the approach track lets you within about 80 yards or so before you can see it.
It is there if you use binoculars from Fields Road, maybe half a mile to the south east,
but there is no real public view at all from the north or indeed due south, east or west
and the changes are on the north side.
This is not a large barn and was first converted to a gymnasium, games room and kitchenette
for Hills Farm around 2008.
It was converted to a dwelling while in the upper floor over the gymnasium area circa
2018.
The proposals constitute householder development which is acceptable in principle in the proposed
location within the conservation area and the AONB.
Chebert's Parish Council found nothing to object to regarding the design, which was
felt to be a balanced, sympathetic design.
What is at issue here is whether you allow this accommodation to grow to accommodate
the needs of Mr Stayer as he runs his agricultural business.
It is, in effect, an agricultural worker's dwelling and it is very obvious that Mr Stayer
works very hard in very long hours, seven days a week.
He has clearly outgrown the three bedrooms, or made that two bedrooms an office, shown
on the existing floor plan.
He needs more accommodation, yet needs to remain close to his sheep.
Already a crazy number of farm workers live in town and commute to the country, causing
much difficulty and bad weather.
The harm of losing farmers like Mr Stare who do so much to maintain the beauty of the Cotswolds
by enabling sheep to graze, as they have done for hundreds of years, is a much greater threat
to the conservation area and the wider Cotswolds than the changes to structure ever are.
Chebbers Parish Council has no objection but would like to impose strict conditions on
external lighting to preserve our dark skies.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next speaker is Helen Bridge.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:28:31
Supporter - 1:28:37
I am supporter and also trans -fiercly partner to Jeremy Thayer.As you will be aware, the barn was initially granted permission for conversion to residential
use in 2007.
It then spent a number of years, as David said, as a gym, party barn by the former owners
of Hills Farm.
It only really became a family home following the permission granted in 2019.
This provided for the ground floor extension.
However, although there is a third bedroom downstairs, it's only really a small box room.
So to all intents and purposes really only a two bedroom.
With this need for the extra bedrooms to provide a comfortable family living space we started
to look into how we could best achieve this.
Before submitting the application we gave very careful consideration to the character
of the barn and the impact on the conservation area.
The ground floor extension had already been given permission and was built with the elongated
sloping roof and two of the sides predominantly bifold glazed doors we
felt this somewhat detracted from it having the appearance of a barn. Our goal
and mission is to try and make it look more like a barn again from this rear
elevation. I understand you've already seen the 3D illustration showing the
existing proposed. In considering an extension we very much wanted to keep
the frontage in its original form, so avoided any change whatsoever to the south face, which
can be seen from the public highway. An extension at the rear wouldn't be visible from the highway,
could barely be seen from the restricted highway, and the only one neighbour may be able to
see the extension is nearly 150 metres away down a steep bank through substantial vegetation.
With this location in mind we then looked into what we could do to actually make it look more like a barn again.
Firstly, we thought it was essential there were no windows in that first floor rear elevation,
so decided any windows should be the same as the existing in the gable ends.
The Vellex windows would remain the same as the existing,
we kept the roof of the first floor extension lower than that of the barn and removed the elongated sloping roof.
We are really pleased to see that the case officer has said that it is less than substantial
harm to the conservation area and that it benefits from minor development exemption
and just very much hope that you will be able to help us achieve it looking like a barn
again.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And finally Jeremy Theom.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:31:20
Thank you chair and committee for putting up with me.Applicant/Agent - 1:31:23
Having farmed the land around the barn for about 2016 and onwards, we couldn't believe it when we had the opportunity to buy it in 2019.The owner asked me if I wanted to buy it, so I bought.
We leapt at this fantastic opportunity to make this our home.
The barn originally granted permission to convert it from residential use in 2007.
We bought the barn, already converted, but the layout included a gym which didn't
really sort of lend itself of being a family home,
turning bicycles and fitness kit. So we then applied for planning permission, put
it and put a current ground floor extension with bi -fold glass doors along
two sides of the extension. It's only when we really moved there and started
living in the building and the barn, whatever you want to call it, we found it wasn't quite
as big and spacious as we thought as it was only really two bedrooms. So we thought we
had to extend on the existing extension. We wanted to keep the extension within keeping
with the barn. So we didn't put any windows on the side of it, which Helen just commented
the back and kept the original hay barn sort of feel to the building with windows in the
gable ends which a lot of barns old style barns always got because they always throw
bales of hay in them. This is to minimize the impact of the area but also give us a
workable living space within the barn. The barn is also situated on a ridge but is neatly
tucked into the bank and has a natural reserved impact on the area with lots of
native trees which give natural screening and I've been quite lucky
because I've got a rolling grass pallet behind which leads itself to my work
with our buildings and sheds for sheep, lambing, so on which is really helpful. We
didn't want to change the front of the building because there's a lovely plaque
up there saying it was built in 1777 which goes back to Napoleonic war times.
So it's on the front face of that barn I try not to do any touching or I leave it be because
it looks fantastic and that's the way I want it to stay.
And I just want a nice sort of usable house building barn by putting two existing more
bedrooms on it so I can basically make it a living home for me and carry on living in
the grey area. I would also like to thank Graham for his helpful and useful input on
our planning application. He actually came out to the site and discussed everything and
our thoughts.
Thank you.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:34:22
If you could return to your seats, please.We have got no comments from the board member, have we?
No.
OK, we are now on to members' questions.
Councillor Harris.
Hi there.
Applicant/Agent - 1:34:45
My first question, and I have done a number of applications in the past outside this areaand we are often asked on the planning portal, what pre -app advice did you get? Given that
the applicant is a counsellor, did the applicant seek pre -application advice in order to take
this forward?
Not to my knowledge. Certainly there was no pre -application on this particular application.
Officer - 1:35:12
Although the application, I mean the site does have quite long planning history.There was no plan to my knowledge.
So the applicants desire to sort of make it more barn -like and so on.
Clearly, our conservation officer disappears and disagrees rather.
And the opportunity to sort of tweak it and maybe make it more conducive
to whatever the conservation officer might find acceptable, it's not there.
That's not happened.
That's not been through.
No, I mean, I'm of the opinion as the case officer that the proposals are inappropriate
and inappropriate designs and overdevelopment.
The approach to the twin gables is certainly out of character.
I mean, I can only judge the application
on what's in front of me.
I can only judge it on its own merits,
not understanding what may or may happen in the future.
I don't know if this one for legal officers puts us in rather an awkward position really
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:36:30
because we've got a member of the council coming forward with an applicationand we're being asked by our officer to refuse it.
No pre -application advice has been sought.
I don't think it puts us in a difficult position, does it? No.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:36:48
No. Okay, we'll move it next, Councillor Jude, please.Oh, thank you, Chair. Do we know if the Conservation Officer actually
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:37:00
visited the site in person?Not to my knowledge, I believe not.
Officer - 1:37:10
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:37:13
I'm just reading her report. She talks about large scale window openings to the groundfloor, but they're already there. So I think that's quite a strange thing. And also on
the report she said something about less than substantial harm weighed against the public
benefit and then goes on to say there is no public benefit. But if somebody has lived
in the village for all those years, farm the land around it and wants to stay in the village
and is a village parish councillor and a district councillor in the area. I would say that that
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:37:55
is an enormous public benefit. Can that be considered public benefit?On the first point, it's not standard for conservation officers to visit every site.
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:38:01
At the end of the day, Graham is the case officer who has made his assessment and hasvisited the site, they're as a consortee, they're providing advice like we were discussing
Thames Water earlier. But in terms of the latter point, that's a private benefit. Whilst
they are a cancer and a parish cancer, they are applying for their own personal private
home. So it is a personal benefit, but that isn't a public benefit when we're looking
at the balancing of harm versus benefit for less substantial harm in the paragraph.
Yes, but it's still good for the community, isn't it, to have somebody like that living
in your community.
OK, well, I'll leave that one to you.
Councillor Julia Judd - 1:38:35
The other thing is, what does less than substantial harmmean if you're a constant, you know?
It's a statement that's in the National Planning Policy
Framework.
Officer - 1:38:48
And that is a way of judging how much of a harma development has to the conservation area.
So a substantial harm is obviously, it could involve something like actually knocking down a building that has quite a lift.
It's very important to the conservation area, that might be a substantial harm.
It's generally, I mean generally, development within conservation areas that is in keeping with the conservation area would always have a less than substantial harm.
Thank you.
Councillor Fowles.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:39:26
Just to ask the case officer, because the applicant said that you'dCouncillor David Fowles - 1:39:30
been very helpful and he was very grateful, and yet you're recommending refusal.So that's interesting, going back to what Councillor Harris said.
Was there quite a detailed discussion? Because obviously you're not objecting in principle to the idea of there being more accommodation there.
It's just the way in which this design has come forward.
So if the applicant wished to make it more of a family home,
bearing in mind all the comments that have been made about having him living in the area,
that's not the issue. It's purely about the design and the impact that it has.
Is it possible just to go back to the images you put up?
I'm an image I'm familiar with.
Is there any particular...?
Can we get back to them?
Come on, go.
It's horrible looking at yourself.
Excuse yourself, David.
LAUGHTER
Turn it back so we can find out later.
Oh, thank you.
.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:41:28
Those are the only images that were provided.Officer - 1:41:31
To illustrate the double gable you need to look at it side on.Yes.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:41:55
Councillor Neill. Yes a couple of things. First of all that there's an objectionCouncillor Dilys Neill - 1:41:58
from a neighbour saying that this development would mean more overlookingof his property. Could you comment on that?
Officer - 1:42:15
The only thing I would say is it is quite some distance in terms of overlooking.The distance between, I believe the object there is, trying to remember the name of the property,
it's to the north west, but I think it is some considerable distance away.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:42:46
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:42:49
I was just looking at paragraph 1017, you talked about the previous application wherethere was a discussion about the bulk of the extension.
And it says the original proposal detailed a two -storey addition which was deemed to
to diminish the agricultural character of the building.
And there was a negotiation to have a single -storey extension
rather than a two -storey extension.
Do we need to take that into account,
that there's already been a refusal
of a two -storey extension?
Is that relevant to the current planning position?
Technically, it wasn't a planning refusal.
Officer - 1:43:31
Those were discussions about that particular planning application.It started with a two -storey extension.
But during the negotiations, through the process of the planning application,
that particular part of the proposals was taken away.
So they decided not to pursue it.
So the amended plans came forward with a single -storey extension.
It's likely or it's possible that it would have been refused if it had been a two -story extension, but we perhaps don't need to consider that.
I mean it predated my time at the council but certainly from reading the file and the conservation officer who made the comments on that particular application was the same conservation officer.
So going back to the point that was made earlier about did the Conservation Officer visit the site,
I think the Conservation Officer has already visited the site,
but it just wasn't in relation to this particular application.
It was done maybe a couple of years, maybe five years ago.
Councillor Dilys Neill - 1:44:41
And just finally, in 2018 you said the proposals would increase the floor space by 25%.Do we need to consider the cumulative effect of the previous extension and this extension
on the non -designated heritage asset or do we just look at the 25 % as it is?
Officer - 1:45:01
I mean I would look at the 25 % just as a guide figure. I think it's there just to explainwhat in trying to quantify so that any readers of the report have an indication about what
sort of level of floor space is being provided. I wouldn't read any more into it than that.
But we don't have to consider that there's already been, with the single store extension,
there's already been an increase in floor space of the barn. We don't have to take that
into account.
Well, no, I mean, I think the policy, you know, at the start, the policy would be EC6,
which looks at bond conversions from agricultural to residential.
It does state that such proposals should not result in significant additions of floor space
or make, you know, changes to the visual appearance of the building.
In other words, we're looking at a sympathetic conversion that requires a minimal amount of alterations to the building.
We're now looking at an extension to that property and that is policy EN 12.
And that again talks about no significant additions.
I don't think it rules out specifically any extension to the building.
We view the extension as being an inappropriate design for the dwelling.
And that's in relation to the conservation area policy.
Thank you.
Councillor McLean.
Thank you.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:46:43
I'm going to my eyes, the proposed extension definitely improves the looks on the northCouncillor Andrew Maclean - 1:46:49
side and makes it look more agricultural, whereas maybe on the east and west you havethe double gable.
How are we supposed to weigh up improvements to one elevation against detriments to another?
That seems to me the question before us because it certainly, to my eyes, it seems to definitely
improve it because the existing elevation is so obviously non -agricultural and I know
some arty people might call it a cat slide roof and all that kind of thing but it definitely
doesn't look like one to me. So from my point of view it's improved one view but it makes
it slightly less agricultural on the other. How are we supposed to weigh that up? Thank
you.
I think just to jump in obviously, I think one point to make was in the officer's report
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:47:35
he does note that the single storey extension was a replacement of an existing structureSo obviously to some extent there was an existing single storey extension in that position.
The 2019 consent replaced that.
So in terms of the form of the building, it is similar to as it would have been prior
to conversion.
In terms of your question, obviously the 3Ds have chosen a selective position where they
are showing a certain view.
It is very unlikely unless you do slap bang in the middle of that extension and look at
it that you are ever going to actually experience the extension in that.
you have to look at it in the round.
When you're experiencing that extension,
if it were constructed, you would experience it
as a fully formed 3D entity,
which you're going to experience
from the various viewpoints.
And obviously that the form of those gables
is uncharacteristic in the agricultural setting.
It doesn't conform with the simple agricultural character
you'd accept of a barn where you have your simple gables,
often with your cap slide, lean two roofs off of them.
That is quite a characteristic arrangement.
Whereas this with the twin gables, very bulky, the large massing, it doesn't complement the form of what was originally a very simple
linear building and I think we just have to look at it. That is a selective
position, but I think if we refer back to the proposed plans, which would be the approved plans where we to permit this application,
we have to view the extension as we would experience it on all sides,
which is realistically when you're sitting in the garden and say and you're looking at it is how you would experience the extension.
Thank you.
Councillor Harris.
Thank you.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:49:09
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:49:12
So if, so this is before us because we have, because it's a council, like we had last week.If this, if it's not a council coming forward, would, and this would be refused, would that be the end of that, to be refused and then,
they have to either appeal it or put it in another application?
Yeah.
Yeah, so that would be the case.
Do you consider this to be very finely balanced? Or are you pretty confident that it doesn't fit?
If this went to appeal it would generally be refused?
Who would take it to appeal?
Sorry, can I just finish?
What I'm saying is, would this likely to have come forward because it's very finely balanced?
Or do you think generally it probably wouldn't have passed the Development Board?
It's here because it's a councillor.
It's here because it is a it is a counselor. We're under the scheme of delegation. We are required to bring it to
Planning Committee I
I'm of the opinion that
You know if it had been finally balanced. I would have said so in the report to my mind
It's not finally balanced it is it is a the the application is recommended for refusal because
It is contrary to our policies.
Which is why I say we are in an awkward position because a council has been given an opportunity
which a member of the public wouldn't be because it is not finely balanced and it finds itself
in front of us because it is.
Which makes it very difficult to vote for because it is not finely balanced.
Okay.
Noted that.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:50:45
We have got Councillor Caul.Mine is an observation, not a question.
Okay.
Councillor Fowls.
Councillor Daryl Corps - 1:50:51
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:50:56
Councillor David Fowles - 1:50:57
So, Councillor Harris has sort of started what I was going to say, but I wanted to enhanceit, which is that if we were minded to approve this or to go against the officer's recommendation,
it's absolutely clear in your report, as I see it on page 74, that you are using language
that does not concord. It's not about finally balance. So we'd have to give a pretty clear
of view, why we disagree with the professional's recommendation in this instance.
That's the point I think that Councillor Harrison and I are both struggling for.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:51:31
If we sit here because, I'm not saying it's because he's a Councillor, but it is absolutelyThank you.
Thank you.
No, just wanted to ask the question.
We've finished on that now.
What question?
Councillor Coleman.
The question I wanted to ask.
You've had an opportunity to ask the question and you've not done it.
So Councillor Coleman.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:51:49
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:51:59
I think for me the question is barn conversions are a tricky thing because we've got to somehowretain the character of the barn while making it livable in and not is this because the question
is this because otherwise we could have any number of isolated buildings in the countryside
springing up anywhere by sticking up a barn first and then converting it six weeks later?
Officer - 1:52:29
I mean certainly that is an issue, absolutely. I mean it's when the policies are basicallysaying that if you've got a barn that you need to completely rebuild then that is tantamount
to being a new dwelling in the countryside, which is totally contrary to our policies.
Separately, I think you've said this fails on eight different points.
Which would you say are the strongest three points on which it fails, or the weakest two?
Can I jump in?
I can't.
They are EN1, EN2, EN10, EN11, 11, 12, and so on.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 1:53:05
I think, to sort of jump in, I think almost in answer to your first question also, weWe also have to bear in mind, as the speaker at the beginning said,
Harrison Bowley, Planning - 1:53:12
this barn dated from1777, it's a historic barn, it's a very traditional barn.
The agricultural heritage of the Cotswolds is a very significant part of it and its agricultural
character and retention as such is therefore in the interest from a heritage point of view
and it is an undesignated heritage asset owing to its age and agricultural character and
form.
So, moving on to your second question.
Local Plan Policy EN2 relates to the design code.
It includes a section relating to extensions to buildings
and also a section on the conversion of rural buildings,
which I appreciate this isn't a conversion.
We can apply the same design principles to if it were.
Again, Policy EN12 relates to impacts
on non -designated heritage assets
and talks about how their extension
should be done sympathetically,
which we don't consider it does.
And EN13 specifically deals with the conversion
of non -domestic historic buildings,
which this would have been and point two of that policy specifically deals with
proposals to extend the role to heritage assets that would have been converted will
be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the proposed works would preserve the
significance of the asset, its setting and its character and again we don't
consider it achieves that. So if you weren't looking, obviously the local plan
should be read as a whole and I've you know all of them are relevant but
specifically EN2, EN12 and EN13 in particular would be there are strong
reasons not to support this application. Thank you very much. Have we got any new
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:54:35
questions anybody wants to ask? Councillor McLean. I just want to ask do we thinkCouncillor Andrew Maclean - 1:54:43
this building has any possibility of any extension if they got appropriate pre -appadvice or is it just unextendable because of its heritage and where it is?
Thank you.
I mean, that would depend on what would come forward for the pre -applica...
Officer - 1:55:00
through a pre -application process.I'm certainly... I certainly have, having been out on the site
and looked at it in some detail, I think we could look at a pre -application
where we would be more sympathetic to a single -storey extension to the site.
That would be...
Councillor Sowen.
Sorry.
Correct.
OK.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:55:27
Well, we've got no further questions.No.
Now we go on to comments, please.
Councillor Harris.
I thought the Councillor got in before me, but...
I think he did.
I think he did, but not to worry.
Councillor Mark Harris - 1:55:40
Look, the applicant didn't seek pre -app advice on this, where he could have arrived at anacceptable design.
And furthermore, he's a Councillor as well.
so it is not like the planning department
is utterly inaccessible to him.
So he is well positioned to seek advice, but he didn't.
And this is only in this forum,
because the applicant is a counsellor,
and it is not finely balanced.
So I think it would be really unfair to other applicants
out there, the general public applicants,
to use this scrutiny forum, which is what it is,
to kind of shoo through this application.
So I think that we should accept the officer's recommendation and refuse, but say to our colleague, go and get some advice as to how this can be done.
So that's a proposal to accept the officer's recommendation.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:56:32
Next.Councillor Mark Harris - 1:56:34
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:56:36
Councillor SolMAN.Thank you, Chair.
A couple of comments then.
Councillor Gary Selwyn - 1:56:43
My voting record will show that I very rarely disagreewith an officer recommendation on the basis
that if you employ professional people
that it will be a bit bizarre not to take their views
since they know more about the technicalities than I do.
Having said that, there is always an element
of subjectivity in how you look at bulk and massing.
And if I refer to 10 .22,
I have to accept the view that it would appear in Congress, it might be a
disproportionate addition to the building and it might be an overly
suburban form and the reason I have to take the officer's recommendation on that
is that if I simply viewed and my colleagues either side of touch on this
if I looked at that particular map or demonstration if you'd have said that
that it was the other way around,
I would have thought the top picture is,
if it was the other way around,
I would object to the existing one.
And equally, if you just showed me that bottom picture,
like my colleague next to me,
I would say that is an enhancement
to that very long cat's slide roof.
What I can't see for the bulk and the massing
is anything else of that built. So although it may be incongruous and it may be a disproportionate
addition, we have nothing in front of us to demonstrate that visually. We have one aspect
that's been supplied but not the ones that the officers are quite rightly referring to
in the scheme of what it may look like on the ground. So I have to visualise what that
may look like. All I'm saying is that it would have been a helpful enhancement addition
were we to have a sideways, yes, but a visual of the side, not merely a plan.
We've got a visual of one aspect, but not a visual of the aspects that our officers are critically evaluating in this particular case.
That's all, Chair. Thank you.
Thank you. Who's next?
Councillor Ray Brassington - 1:58:46
Councillor Fowls, eh?Councillor Fowls.
I'll try and make sure you don't cut me off this time, Chairman.
Councillor David Fowles - 1:58:53
I would agree, but from a different perspective, I think the harm was done with the original conversion and the cat's -eye roof.I totally agree with what Councillor Selwyn has said. I think it comes down to a very simple issue here, which is the officer's language is very clear.
It's all about bulk. It's only here because the applicant is a Councillor, otherwise it would have been determined outside this.
So I'm going to find it very difficult to do anything else other than support the officer's recommendation.
It is unfortunate that we haven't got a CGI of the side elevation, which is what the Gables ends is all about.
I don't know if there was one in existence somewhere to help us. So we're relying on these two plans,
which look on the surface of it exactly what Councillor Selwyn has said. It doesn't look that much different.
Purely because we have got a CGI of two elevations, which are really not the elevations that we
are concerned about, well one elevation, the elevation we are concerned about, but I come
back to agreeing with what Councillor Harris has said.
I feel very uncomfortable about going against the officer's recommendation and the language
I choose.
It is not a precedent, but I have no basis to do that based on the professional advice
of the officer.
Is that a second, David?
Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:00:18
I second Councillor Harris on that basis.Thank you.
Councillor Coleman.
Oh, Chair, yes.
We must do the best we can with the papers we have.
Councillor Patrick Coleman - 2:00:27
And what I think is page 83 shows the east and west elevations in two dimensions.And we have to then imagine the bulk behind the double gable on each end.
That is what I read this as being, a double gable with a dotted line that means there
is something else behind it.
I think, does that look anything like something that was a barn?
I appreciate that the northern elevation is not visible by many people and the southern
elevation has been preserved.
but the rules on barn conversions are pretty awkward and although this isn't a
listed building it is a non -designated heritage asset which is almost as bad
and it is one of those things where once you get involved in something that's
unusual in planning it often comes back and bites you whether that's a listed
building or a conservation area or indeed a non -designated heritage asset under a barn
conversion. So yes with some reluctance I believe it would fly in the face of the
evidence and procedure and good practice to permit this so I'm voting to
support the officers recommendation.
Councillor Cawley did you want to comment?
Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:02:02
Yeah thank you. I mean again it's the difficulty of looking at the that rearCouncillor Daryl Corps - 2:02:08
elevation where it does actually look like it's an improvement when you look at it.I'm talking about the CGI piece, but then it's like looking at the west elevation,
east elevation of the drawings, we don't have anything to bring that to life in that CGI
way.
So I am minded to support the officer's recommendation.
Thank you.
Councillor Foulds?
I don't know, a bit of guidance from Helen.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:02:36
It would appear that the applicant went to our officerCouncillor David Fowles - 2:02:40
showing a visual.I don't know, is that not permissible,
if it is a visual of what we're looking at?
Are we allowed to see it, or is that inappropriate?
Could Keira please explain what the applicant did?
Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:02:52
Can you see that?Are we allowed to see it?
Are we allowing this applicant something that we wouldn't allow another applicant?
Councillor David Fowles - 2:03:10
No, the applicant shouldn't do that.Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:03:11
The Councillor, he should know but he shouldn't be speaking to officers at the committee.So please pay note of that.
The principle of it is that obviously everything that comes in is published on the website.
Councillor David Fowles - 2:03:22
It has to be published on the website before.It means people who might want to comment on it don't have the opportunity.
Thank you. I notice that.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:03:36
Is that a tick?I got a cross last time. Thank you.
Councillor Stewart.
Councillor David Fowles - 2:03:47
I think, I can't remember who was on the planning committee with us in 2020,Councillor Julia Judd - 2:03:52
but there was an application that came in from Weston Burt,which was a listed cottage in the village where the applicant wanted to do exactly what
this applicant wanted to do out the back. The conservation officer had turned it down
because the property was listed. This committee decided that because the front of the property
still looked exactly as it had done when it was built, probably in early Victorian times,
and the back had been changed and messed about with over the years anyway, just as similar
to this sort of situation, it was absurd to stop this applicant from creating a home that
could be habitable. I'm struggling to see any difference between the decision that the
committee made on that property in Westonbert in 2020 and this property today. The public
benefit to this would be that somebody can live in a comfortable home without having
to extend out to the side and have three exposed walls and the problems with heating and all
the rest of it. So I'm afraid to say I support the application for approval and if anybody
would like to second me I would be delighted.
Any more comments before we go to the vote?
No? Okay. We're going to the vote now.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:05:17
The proposal forwarded by Councillor Harris and seconded by Councillor Folles is to refuse this application.So if you could vote now, please.
Councillor David Fowles - 2:05:59
That application is refused.Thank you.
Councillor Ray Brassington - 2:06:06
We now move back to the agenda item 10 site inspection briefing.There will be a site inspection so can those members who put their names here can make
a note of that.
If you can't attend please let somebody know and try to send a substitute.
Where is it going to be?
It is going to be in one of the Duntie spawns I believe.
It is a Duntie spawn.
It is a Duntie spawn.
And Councillor Judd, can you? I'm talking, thank you. The site inspection is going to
be on 2nd April, so those Councillors on that list, please note. Finally, Item 11, licensing
subcommittee is going to be on 27th March if needed. I'm not aware of it being needed
moment, doesn't like it but just make a note of that. Okay so that's finishing the agenda
and that's the end of the committee. Thank you.
- Minutes , 12/02/2025 Planning and Licensing Committee, opens in new tab
- Planning & Licensing Committee - 12 March 2025 - Index of Applications, opens in new tab
- 24.01608.FUL - Case Officer Report, opens in new tab
- 1 - 24.01608.FUL - Site Location Plan, opens in new tab
- 2 - 24.01608.FUL - Axonometric View, opens in new tab
- 3 - 24.01608.FUL - Visualisation - Streetscape, opens in new tab
- 4 - 24.01608.FUL - Visualisation - Parkscape, opens in new tab
- 5 - 24.01608.FUL - Proposed Street Scene - 2 Bedroom 4 Person Terrace, opens in new tab
- 6 - 24.01608.FUL - Proposed Elevations - 3 Bedroom 6 Person Terrace, opens in new tab
- 7 -24.01608.FUL - Proposed Elevations - 2 Bedroom 4 Person Terrace, opens in new tab
- 8 - 24.01608.FUL - Proposed Site Layout, opens in new tab
- 9 - 24.01608.FUL - Detailed Landscape Masterplan, opens in new tab
- 10 - 24.01608.FUL - Photograph, opens in new tab
- Additional Pages, opens in new tab
- 24.02125.FUL - Case Officer Report, opens in new tab
- 1 - 24.02125.FUL - Site Location Plan, opens in new tab
- 2 - 24.02125.FUL - Block Plan, opens in new tab
- 3 - 24.02125.FUL - Existing Elevations & Floor Plans, opens in new tab
- 4 - 24.02125.FUL - Proposed Elevations & Floor Plans, opens in new tab
- Additional Pages 24.02125.FUL, opens in new tab
There are currently no votes to display