Agenda and minutes
PDF 94 KBVenue: Council Chamber - Trinity Road
Contact: Democratic Services
Media
| No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Apologies Additional documents: Minutes: There were no apologies. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Substitute Members To note details of any substitution arrangements in place for the Meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: There were no substitute members. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Declarations of Interest To receive any declarations of interest from Members and Officers, relating to items to be considered at the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: Cllr Watson stated that he had voted on a similar application in a Town Council meeting before becoming a member. However, he felt he could make a decision on the application with an open mind. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 11 October 2023. Additional documents: Minutes: There were no amendments to the minutes.
The minutes were proposed by Councillor Coleman and seconded by Councillor Neill.
RESOLVED: To approve the minutes of the previous meeting.
Voting record- For 9, Against- 0, Abstentions – 2
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chair's Announcements (if any) Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair had stated that a training session would be arranged by the Senior Planning Case Officer, on noise.
The Chair stated that the item ‘confirmation of an article 4 direction at Land Parcel West of St. Lawrence’s Church, Church Street, Weston Subedge’ had been added to the Agenda after publication at the Chair’s discretion due to the need to urgently deliberate it, due to the risk of reputational damage. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Public questions A maximum of 15 minutes is allocated for an “open forum” of public questions at committee meetings. No person may ask more than two questions (including supplementary questions) and no more than two such questions may be asked on behalf of one organisation. The maximum length of oral questions or supplementary questions by the public will be two minutes. Questions must relate to the responsibilities of the Committee but questions in this section cannot relate to applications for determination at the meeting.
The response may take the form of: a) A direct oral response (maximum length: 2 minutes); b) Where the desired information is in a publication of the Council or other published work, a reference to that publication; or c) Where the reply cannot conveniently be given orally, a written answer circulated later to the questioner. Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor David Fowles raised a point of order, and asked the Chair whether motions would still be dealt with in the order received, as previously. The Chair confirmed this to be the case.
There were no Public questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Member questions A maximum period of fifteen minutes is allowed for Member questions. Questions must be directed to the Chair and must relate to the remit of the committee but may not relate to applications for determination at the meeting.
Questions will be asked in the order notice of them was received, except that the Chair may group together similar questions.
The deadline for submitting questions is 5.00pm on the working day before the day of the meeting unless the Chair agrees that the question relates to an urgent matter, in which case the deadline is 9.30am on the day of the meeting.
A member may submit no more than two questions. At the meeting the member may ask a supplementary question arising directly from the original question or the reply. The maximum length of a supplementary question is one minute.
The response to a question or supplementary question may take the form of: a) A direct oral response (maximum length: 2 minutes); b) Where the desired information is in a publication of the Council or other published work, a reference to that publication; or c) Where the reply cannot conveniently be given orally, a written answer circulated later to the questioner. Additional documents: Minutes: A member question had been asked by Councillor Mark Harris. The Interim Development Manager stated that there was a table available on the Council’s website which would be shared with the minutes.
Question - How many houses and flats in the Cotswold District have planning permission, but have not yet been built and inhabited?
Answer- The number of dwellings that have permission but have yet to be built out yet is 3,792 dwellings at April 2023. Table three of the following report shows ‘commitments’ (i.e. dwellings that have yet to start construction or are currently under construction) by settlement.
During the meeting, the Interim Development Manager stated that a table showing dwelling figures could be found on the website and a link would be shared with the minutes;
The Interim Development Manager stated that habitation figures for these dwellings were not available.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
23/02682/FUL - Land West Of Worwell Farmhouse, Cirencester Road, Tetbury Summary Mixed use development comprising healthcare facility, 27 dwellings (including 11 affordable units), landscaping, site access, internal estate road and associated works at Land West Of Worwell Farmhouse, Cirencester Road, Tetbury Gloucestershire, GL8 8RY.
Case Officer Harrison Bowley
Ward Member Councillor Chris Twells
Recommendation REFUSE Additional documents:
Minutes: The application was for a mixed-use development comprising healthcare facility, 27 dwellings (including 11 affordable units), landscaping, site access, internal estate road and associated works at Land West Of Worwell Farmhouse Cirencester Road Tetbury Gloucestershire GL8 8RY.
The officer recommendation was to refuse the application.
The Case Officer introduced the item.
Councillor Stephen Evans from Tetbury with Upton Town Council addressed the meeting, supporting the application.
Mr Warren Hateley addressed the Committee, supporting the application.
Dr Peter Hill addressed the Committee on behalf of Phoenix Healthcare Group and the Applicant. Dr. Hill highlighted the perceived public benefit from the improved healthcare facility.
As the application crossed two boundaries, the Chair allowed two Councillors to speak as ward members. Councillor Nikki Ind addressed the Committee. Councillor Ind stated that she was a member of Greening Tetbury, and Tetbury Town Council, both of which had submitted representations that she had not been involved in producing. Councillor Ind highlighted public benefit of the application, but equally concerns of some residents over damage to the Conservation Area.
Councillor Chris Twells addressed the Committee. Councillor Twells stated that some residents felt they were intimidated and could not object to the application. Councillor Twells urged the members to consider the application on its own merits.
Member Questions
Members made reference to the statement from NHS Gloucestershire. The Case Officer stated that this confirmed that if the application was refused, it would be unlikely that an alternative site would come forward for several years. Therefore, if the Committee felt it was necessary, the Officer advised that it could attribute more weight to the public benefit of the application as a result of the letter. Officers stated that they felt that the letter received did carry a lot of weight, and had it been received at the time of writing the report, officers stated that they would have recommended the application’s approval. Officers stated that it was apparent from the letter that no similar sites were likely to come forward in the short term.
Later on, it was also stated by Members that the letter had been received only six days before the Committee meeting, and had represented a change in viewpoint from the letter submitted for the previous application.
The Interim Head of Legal Services reminded the Committee that they had refused a previous application on a similar application on the same site, which was also a material planning consideration, which the Committee needed to consider. The Committee would be able to judge how much weight to attribute to the previous application, as it was a relevant material consideration but not legally binding.
Members asked if it was possible to invite NHS Gloucestershire to address the Committee at a future meeting. Officers stated that a representative could be invited but the Committee had no powers to summon them.
Members asked why a nearby hospital site was not used. The Case Officer stated that although the Forward Planning team had requested full details of the sequential test, ... view the full minutes text for item 19. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
23/02283/FUL - Gardners Cottage, Back Lane, Upper Oddington Summary Demolition of existing reconstituted stone dormer bungalow and replacement with new build dwelling and associated works at Gardners Cottage, Back Lane, Upper Oddington, Moreton-In-Marsh Gloucestershire GL56 0XL.
Case Officer Harrison Bowley
Ward Member Councillor David Cunningham
Recommendation PERMIT Additional documents:
Minutes: There was a 10-minute adjournment before proceeding onto the item.
The application was for the demolition of existing reconstituted stone dormer bungalow and replacement with new build dwelling and associated works at Gardners Cottage Back Lane Upper Oddington Moreton-In-Marsh Gloucestershire GL56 0XL.
The Officer recommendation was to permit. The Case Officer introduced the item.
Councillor David Cunningham read a statement from a resident, who had objected to the application but had to leave the meeting early.
Mr. Martin Chandler, the agent for the application, addressed the Committee.
Councillor David Cunningham addressed the Committee as the ward member. Councillor Cunningham stated that the application would cause harm to the conservation area if permitted.
Site visit
Members who had attended the site visit summarised their comments.
Members raised concerns over the scale of the development, and stated it was not subservient to the main dwelling, but others stated that the extension would not be very noticeable from the road.
Members stated there was a mix in age of properties in Oddington, and a mix of materials.
Members stated that existing construction was not of historic interest and had minimal architectural merit.
Member Questions
Members asked the Conservation Officer for their view on the application. The Conservation Officer stated that the walls had been kept low to look like garden walls, and incorporated brickwork from the adjacent house. In their view it was a quality piece of contemporary vernacular, which enhanced the conservation area by improving the existing dwelling.
The Conservation Officer stated they did not think that the height would cause harm.
Members asked if the building should all be in stone. The Conservation Officer stated that the more visible portion would be in stone, and the brick broke up the massing, softening the appearance.
Members asked if the angle of the roof was in keeping with the vernacular. The Conservation Officer stated that the design was a contemporary interpretation of 17th Century design, which added to the quality of the design, setting it apart from an average contemporary construction.
Members asked whether this would be the first contemporary extension in the area, The Conservation Officer made reference to a few examples they were aware of.
The Conservation Officer stated that they did not think that the proposals harmed character and appearance of the conservation area.
Members stated it was regrettable that energy efficiency details were not included. The Case Officer stated that they had asked for them, but could not mandate them as they were not currently part of the validation checklist. There were conditions included in regard to this.
Member comments
Councillor Mark Harris proposed permitting the application, referencing the Conservation Officer’s advice.
Councillor Gary Selwyn seconded the proposals.
Councillor David Fowles had to leave the meeting early and did not vote.
Some members referenced objection comments from the Parish Council and neighbours, and the ward members comments.
RESOLVED: That the Committee PERMIT the application
Voting record- For 8, Against 2, Abstain 0
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sites Inspection Briefing Members for Wednesday 6 December 2023 (if required)
Councillors Ray Brassington, Patrick Coleman, David Fowles, Julia Judd, Ian Watson. Additional documents: Minutes: The Sites Inspections Briefing was subject to the next review panel. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Licensing Sub-Committee Members for Licensing Sub-Committee (Licensing 2003 Act Matters), to be confirmed (if required)
Councillors Patrick Coleman, Ian Watson, Mark Harris. Additional documents: Minutes: The Senior Democratic Services Officer stated that no notification had been received of needing a licensing sub-committee. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Purpose For the Committee to confirm the proposed Article 4 Direction.
Recommendation That Planning and Licensing Committee resolves to confirm the Article 4 Direction. Additional documents:
Minutes: The purpose of the report was for the Committee to confirm the proposed Article 4 Direction, which entailed removing the permitted development rights on the site.
The Interim Development Manager introduced the item, stating that there was a scheduled ancient monument in the middle of the site, which was a historical asset.
This would allow the Council to protect the monument by restricting development, while still allowing livestock to continue to graze on the site
The Interim Development Manager stated that the Ward Members were aware of this, and in favour of the proposal. The proposal came about following concerns raised by local residents and the Parish Council.
Councillor Dilys Neill proposed, Gary Selwyn seconded the recommendations.
RESOLVED: That the Committee AGREED to confirm the Article 4 Direction
|