Agenda and minutes
PDF 96 KBVenue: the Council Chamber - Council Offices, Trinity Road, Cirencester, GL7 1PX. View directions
Contact: Democratic Services
Media
| No. | Item | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Apologies To receive any apologies for absence.
The quorum for the Planning and Licensing Committee is 3 members.
Additional documents: Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillors Michael Vann, Gary Selwyn and Dilys Neill.
|
|||||||||
|
Substitute Members To note details of any substitution arrangements in place for the Meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor Mike Evemy acted as a substitute for Councillor Michael Vann.
|
|||||||||
|
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: Councillor David Fowles, stated that he knew the parish Councillor and Objector for item number 8 as well as the agent for item number 9.
Councillor Patrick Coleman also knew the objector for item number 8.
Councillor Ray Brassington stated that he knew the agent for item number 10 as they had previously been employed at the Council.
All three members stated that they were approaching the items with an open mind.
|
|||||||||
|
To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 12 June 2024. Additional documents: Minutes: There were no amendments to the minutes.
The minutes were proposed by Councillor Watson and seconded by Councillor Coleman.
Voting record- For 7, Against 0, Abstentions 2, Absent/did not vote 2*
RESOLVED: To APPROVE the minutes of the meeting held on 12 June 2024.
*Due to a technical issue there was no recorded vote for the item.
|
|||||||||
|
Chair's Announcements To receive any announcements from the Chair of the Planning and Licensing Committee.
Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair reminded Members that the next meeting would be on the first Wednesday of the month, on 7 August.
There were no other announcements.
|
|||||||||
|
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: 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: Democratic Services had not received any Member Questions prior to the meeting.
Councillor Mark Harris had submitted a question which he had submitted to planning services. It was explained that a written response to this question would be distributed following the meeting.
|
|||||||||
|
23/03211/DMPO- Rendcomb Airfield, Rendcomb, Cirencester Proposal Vary the obligation of the Section 106 Agreement at Rendcomb Airfield Rendcomb Cirencester Gloucestershire GL7 7DF
Case Officer Harrison Bowley
Ward Member Councillor Paul Hodgkinson
Recommendation The planning obligation shall continue to have effect without modification. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair explained that he had previously been employed by the Council as an Environmental Health Consultant between 1986 to 2012 and had dealt with noise complaints relating to flying operations at this airfield. He left the Council in 2012 before being elected as a Councillor in 2015.
The Case Officer introduced the item.
The application was to vary the obligation of the Section 106 Agreement at Rendcomb Airfield Rendcomb Cirencester Gloucestershire GL7 7DF.
The background to the application, as set out in the Officer report was that, upon the original planning permission being granted on 20 June 1989, the approval was subject to a legal agreement, which included “11. Not to use the land or allow or permit the use of the land for commercial purposes with the exception that aircraft used elsewhere for commercial purposes may be kept or stationed upon the land."
The application had been submitted owing to commercial activity at the site, where wing walking had been operating since 1992, resulting in a breach of the condition, and subsequent complaints from residents regarding this.
Following consultation with an independent noise consultant, The Case Officer had deemed that in legal terms, the condition continued to serve a useful purpose in protecting residents from noise and conserving the tranquillity of the Cotswolds National Landscape, and therefore recommended that the condition not be amended.
Public speakers addressed the Committee.
Councillor Mark Tuffnell, from North Cerney Parish Council, addressed the Committee. Councillor Tuffnell stated that the level of wingwalking flights had increased over the years, and that these were excessively noisy for residents.
Councillor Graham Horwood, from Rendcomb Parish Council, addressed the Committee. Councillor Horwood stated that wingwalking to the general public had been a recent development, leading to the increase of complaints. Councillor Horwood stated that the legal agreement continued to serve a useful purpose, and therefore should be maintained.
Nicholas Arbuthnott, an objector, addressed the Committee. The objector raised issues with the noise created by the proposals being contrary to the quiet enjoyment of the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, in which the site was situated.
Mike Dentith, a supporter, addressed the Committee. The supporter stated that wing walking flights to the general public had been operating from the 1990s and raised money for charitable causes. They also stated that they did not believe there was an impact on biodiversity.
Vic Norman, the applicant, addressed the Committee. The applicant stated that the aircraft was flying as quietly as possible, and highlighted the support for charitable causes.
The Ward Member had sent his apologies but had distributed a statement within the additional pages.
Members who attended the Sites Inspection Briefing addressed the rest of the Committee, raising the following points;
|
|||||||||
|
23/02066/FUL- Land To The Rear Of South Cerney Surgery, Clarks Hay, South Cerney Proposal Erection of single-storey building to provide up to 2no. commercial units (Class E) and associated ancillary development at Land To The Rear Of South Cerney Surgery Clarks Hay South Cerney Gloucestershire
Case Officer Helen Cooper
Ward Member Councillor Juliet Layton
Recommendation Permit Additional documents:
Minutes: The application was for the erection of single-storey building to provide up to two commercial units (Class E) and associated ancillary development at Land To The Rear Of South Cerney Surgery, Clarks Hay, South Cerney, Gloucestershire.
The Case Officer introduced the item and explained that negotiations with the applicant had taken place and that they had agreed to reduce the scale of the proposal.
Public speakers addressed the Committee. At the Chair’s discretion two objectors were allowed to speak. They had both been registered for the slot due to an administrative error.
Christine Hall, an objector, addressed the Committee. The objector raised concern over parking and highways safety.
Colin Godfrey, an objector, addressed the Committee. The objector raised concerns over decreased parking space, and that the steep design of the roof was not in keeping with the Cotswold Design Code within the Local Plan.
Andrew Pywell, the agent, addressed the Committee. The agent stated that the application was in keeping with Local Plan Policies EC1, EC3, EC7 and EC8. They also addressed the parking concerns and stated that the centre was served by a private car park but that some issues existed with this, which would be ameliorated by the proposal.
Councillor Juliet Layton, the Ward Member, addressed the Committee. Councillor Layton addressed the parking concerns, explaining that she had chosen to refer the application to the Committee due to these reasons.
Member Questions
Councillor Mike Evemy stated that the South Cerney surgery was designated as his local GP surgery but that he did not feel he had a conflict of interest. Councillor David Fowles also utilised the surgery.
Members asked questions of the Case Officer, who responded as follows;
Member Comments
Members commented on the application as follows;
The Interim Development Management Manager felt that the use of all six tandem parking spaces being used for employees was not clear, but the overall scheme including signage would be assessed as part of the conditions being discharged.
Councillor Judd proposed refusing the ... view the full minutes text for item 21.
|
|||||||||
|
24/00186/FUL- Land South East Of Elkstone Studios, Elkstone Proposal Siting of 6no. shepherd huts for mixed retail and community use (Class E(a)/(b) and/or Class F2(a)) at Land South East Of Elkstone Studios Elkstone Gloucestershire GL53 9PQ
Case Officer Andrew Moody
Ward Member Councillor Julia Judd
Recommendation Refuse Additional documents:
Minutes: The application was for the siting of six shepherd huts for mixed retail and community use (Class E(a)/(b) and/or Class F2(a)) at Land South East Of Elkstone Studios, Elkstone, Gloucestershire, GL53 9PQ.
The Case Officer introduced the application. The uses would be for goods, hot food and essential goods.
The Interim Head of Legal Services stated that Cllr Judd had referred the application into the Committee but could partake in the debate. The legal test in this case was whether a fair-minded observer would think that the member was approaching the application with a sufficiently open mind so as to not predetermine it.
The agent, Wendy Hopkins, addressed the Committee, reading a statement on behalf of the applicant. The statement made reference to the lack of objections and small footprint of the scheme.
Member Questions Members asked questions of the Case Officer, who responded as follows;
Member Comments Members made the following comments
Councillor Patrick Coleman proposed refusing the application, stating that the application was not appropriate as it was not reusing existing rural buildings.
The proposal was seconded by Councillor Ian Watso
|
|||||||||
|
22/02749/REM- Employment Land East Of Spratsgate Lane, Cirencester Proposal Application for the approval of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the employment area to the east of Spratsgate Lane Cirencester Gloucestershire
Case Officer Anthony Keown
Ward Member Councillor Gary Selwyn
Recommendation Refuse Additional documents:
Minutes:
The application was for the approval of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the employment area to the east of Spratsgate Lane, Cirencester, Gloucestershire.
Case Officer introduced the item. The Case Officer explained that the application was part of The Steadings development, which required sustainable, high-quality mixed-use development. This application related to the first of three Employment Areas within The Steadings, were it to receive permission. At the meeting in March 2024, Members delegated authority to the Interim Head of Planning Services, in consultation with the Chair of Planning and Licensing Committee, to determine this application subject to a number of caveats. One of those caveats was agreement of a satisfactory scheme for controlling noise emitted from the development.
The Council’s Environmental Regulatory Services (ERS) lead on this application left the Council in March 2024. Officers therefore appointed independent noise consultants Nova Acoustics Limited to provide specialist acoustic advice on the application. Nova provided advice in a Technical Memo dated the 8th of May. It responds to the Applicants’ noise evidence, and also sets out the findings of Nova’s assessment of the site.
Having reviewed Nova’s Technical Memo, officers advised the Applicants on six measures that would need to be incorporated within the scheme for controlling noise. Of those measures, three could be secured through conditions attached to any approval of reserved matters. The remaining three could not be satisfactorily addressed by conditions. The Case Officer explained how these three contested measures were preventing officers from recommending approval of this application. As the Applicants were not prepared to agree the measures in question, officers had no choice but to recommend refusal. The Case Officer explained that the preferred approach was to agree a satisfactory scheme for controlling noise, which would allow officers to support this application.
James Hicks, the agent, addressed the Committee. The agent stated that the application had been referred to the Committee over a difference of opinion on the interpretation of condition 68 (Noise) attached to the outline planning permission 16/00054/OUT. The agent did not feel that the officer’s assessment was correct, stating that he believed the critical noise threshold should be 55 decibels (dBA). The agent stated that if this application was not permitted, the Applicants would appeal against the Council’s decision, and apply for costs.
Member Questions
The Case Officer described the three contested measures:
The Case Officer explained how the Applicants did not consider these measures to be necessary. He explained that the difference of opinion stemmed from different interpretations of condition 68, which refers to two different British Standards. That condition requires the scheme for controlling noise to be based on the noise rating and methodology laid out in British Standard (BS) 4142. It also states that ... view the full minutes text for item 23.
|
|||||||||
|
Sites Inspection Briefing Members for 31 July 2024;
Councillors Ray Brassington, Patrick Coleman, Julia Judd, Dilys Neill, Michael Vann Additional documents: Minutes: A Sites Inspection Briefing would take place on 31 July 2024 with Councillors Ray Brassington, Patrick Coleman, Julia Judd, Dilys Neill and Michael Vann
|
|||||||||
|
Licensing Sub-Committee Licensing Sub-Committee not presently required.
Members on the rota for the next Sub-Committee: Ray Brassington (Chair), David Fowles, Dilys Neill Additional documents: Minutes:
No Licensing Sub-Committee would be required at present.
|
Carried