Skip to main content

Agenda and minutes

Planning and Licensing Committee - Wednesday, 11th June, 2025 2.00 pm

Venue: the Council Chamber - Council Offices, Trinity Road, Cirencester, GL7 1PX. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services 

Media

Items
No. Item

137.

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 Julia Judd and Daryl Corps.

138.

Substitute Members

To note details of any substitution arrangements in place for the meeting.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Len Wilkins substituted for Councillor Daryl Corps.

139.

Declarations of Interest

To receive any declarations of interest from Members relating to items to be considered at the meeting.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Fowles noted, in relation to the first item on the agenda, that the supporter, Mr Harris was the former Council leader and was known to Members of the Committee and that the Agent for the third application previously worked at the Council planning department.  He declared that these were working relationships and he had no pecuniary interests.

 

Councillor Neill noted a past acquaintance with the applicant for item three, including a prior visit for building advice and past donations made by the applicant to a village fête. The member confirmed no pecuniary interest and no recent contact.

 

Councillor Patrick Coleman declared that he had been a member of the Cirencester Town Council Planning Committee that had submitted a view on the first planning Application.

 

140.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 555 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 14 May 2025.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting held on 14 May 2025 were discussed.

Councillor David Fowles proposed accepting the minutes and Councillor Andrew Maclean seconded the proposal which was put to the vote and agreed by the Committee.

 

RESOLVED: To APPROVE the minutes of the meeting held on 14 May 2025.

Recorded Vote
TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
Minutes Resolution Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
    		•

    141.

    Chair's Announcements

    To receive any announcements from the Chair of the Planning and Licensing Committee.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    There were no Chair’s Announcements.

    142.

    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 one minute. 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.

    143.

    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 in which they were received but 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:

    There were no member questions.

    144.

    24/02854/OUT - Land West of Kingshill Lane, Cirencester. pdf icon PDF 340 KB

    Proposal

    Residential development for up to 280 dwellings.

     

    Case Officer

    Martin Perks

     

    Ward Member

    Councillor Mike Evemy

     

    Recommendation

    PERMIT subject to no objection from Gloucestershire County Council Highways and completion of S106 legal agreement covering provision of affordable housing, self-build/custom build plots, highway improvements works (if required), Public Open Space management and maintenance, Biodiversity Net Gain, financial contributions to libraries and North Meadow and Clattinger Farm Special Area of Conservation

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Proposal

    Residential development for up to 280 dwellings.

     

    Case Officer

    Martin Perks

     

    Ward Member

    Councillor Mike Evemy

     

    Recommendation

    PERMIT subject to no objection from Gloucestershire County Council Highways and completion of S106 legal agreement covering provision of affordable housing, self-build/custom build plots, highway improvements works (if required), Public Open Space management and maintenance, Biodiversity Net Gain, financial contributions to libraries and North Meadow and Clattinger Farm Special Area of Conservation.

     

    The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application.

    The Case Officer introduced the application:

    • The additional pages published on 6 June contained an objection from a resident that was later withdrawn which was explained in the Additional pages on 10 June.  Further objections were included in the additional pages on 10 June along with the response from Gloucestershire Highways consultation with no objection to the application.
    • A further objection was received, stating that the proposal would significantly alter the character of Preston village. Key concerns included the risk of urban sprawl, increased traffic at the Swindon Road junction, flooding issues, insufficient provision for pedestrian and cycle access, and inadequate local infrastructure.
    • Various location maps, aerial photographs, site master plan, footpath plan, and the 3 options for linking to the local schools were shared.

     

    Public Speakers:

    Public Speaker 1

    Preston Parish Council - Mrs Julie Tomblin

    • The Chair of Preston Parish Council outlined concerns about the proposed development’s impact on the village’s rural character and  identity.
    • The site separated Cirencester and Preston, raising fears of urban sprawl.
    • The Parish Council requested that the development include a green buffer along Kingshill Lane.
    • Support was expressed for Active Travel England’s recommendation to refuse the application without adequate walking and cycling infrastructure.
    • Suggestions included:
    • Extending pedestrian and cycle routes
    • Creating a footpath to link with schools
    • Implementing safe crossing at Preston Toll Bar
    • The Parish Council requested that the application comply with the Preston Neighbourhood Development Plan, regarding sustainable transport and protection of village character.

     

    Public Speaker 2

    Supporter – Mr Joe Harris

    • Reference was made to current housing waiting lists: Cirencester (794), Siddington (262), and Preston (15).
    • The scheme would deliver 280 homes, including 112 affordable units (40%) across social rent, shared ownership, and First Homes.
    • The site was described as well-located, with a layout sensitive to surroundings and commitments to biodiversity and active travel improvements.
    • It was noted that following changes to national policy in December 2023, the Council now had a 1.8-year housing land supply, triggering the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

     

    Ward Member

    Councillor Mike Evemy

    • Acknowledged objectors’ and parish council concerns regarding:
    • Loss of farmland
    • Impact on Preston’s historic character
    • Effect on the setting of the listed Forty Farm
    • Loss of key views into Cirencester (as in a 2023 refusal)
    • Noted that the site is not allocated in the local plan and was previously refused, but national policy changes and a 1.8-year housing land supply now shift the balance to committee decision.
    • Recognised benefits including 112 affordable homes.
    • Supported the proposed foot/cycle path behind the football  ...  view the full minutes text for item 144.
    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    Site Inspection briefing Resolution Rejected
    24/02854/OUT - Land West of Kingshill Lane. To Permit Resolution Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
    		•

    145.

    24/03111/FUL - The Saddlery, Kineton, Guiting Power. pdf icon PDF 201 KB

    Proposal

    Removal of stables, erection of a dwelling.

     

    Case Officer

    Helen Cooper

     

    Ward Member

    Councillor Len Wilkins

     

    Recommendation

    PERMIT

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Proposal

    Removal of stables, erection of a dwelling.

     

    Case Officer

    Helen Cooper

     

    Ward Member

    Councillor Len Wilkins

     

    Recommendation

    PERMIT

     

    The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application.

     

    The Case Officer introduced the application:

    • An error in the report, paragraph 10.45 should have read ‘Greenbank Cottage’ rather than ‘Wayside’
    • There was a typing error in paragraph 10.60.  It should have read ‘a new site access is proposed and the access arrangements have been reviewed by highways who have raised no objection.’
    • Additional pages were submitted containing public comments.
    • A site location plan, ariel photo, original proposal and amendment layout plans, site photographs, road view and access were shared.

     

    Public Speakers

    Public Speaker1

    The Temple Guiting Parish Council Member, Councillor Liza Hanks, made the following points:

    • The proposed building (6.6m high) was considered too tall and overpowering for the plot.
    • It was out of keeping with local character; conflicted with Cotswold Design Code.
    • Driveway access was steep, narrow, and unsafe for vehicle manoeuvring.
    • There was no public benefit; not affordable housing.
    • There would be a 57% biodiversity loss.
    • The application failed to meet five Cotswold Local Plan policies:

    DS3 – Not proportionate or supportive of local character.

    EN2 – Disregards area’s distinctiveness.

    EN4 – Conflicts with historic landscape character.

    EN10 – No public benefit to outweigh heritage harm.

    EN5 – Does not conserve or enhance the AONB.

    • They requested refusal or, alternatively, a committee site visit.

     

    Public Speaker 2

    Mr James Emtage, Objector, made the following points:

    • The site was situated outside the established village envelope and the application was contrary to Local Plan Policy DS3.
    • The proposed dwelling was tall and elevated, making it visually intrusive in the rural landscape and harmful to the character of the Cotswolds [AB1] National Landscape.
    • The scheme included no affordable housing. A covenant for local occupancy and a scaled-down, single-storey design were suggested to make it more suitable for local families.

     

    Public Speaker 3

    The agent, Mark Pettit, made the following points:

    • The proposal aligned with Local Plan policy allowing small-scale housing in non-principal settlements and contributed to housing supply.
    • The scheme was revised following officer feedback and was supported by the Conservation Officer. The barn-style design was considered appropriate for the village edge and used local materials.
    • The proposed dwelling was modest in height and well-positioned to minimise visual impact.
    • The proposal supported village vitality and aligned with NPPF aims to sustain rural services.
    • No objections were raised by highways, ecology, the tree officer, or rights of way.  

     

    Councillor Len Wilkins, Ward Member, made the following points:

    • The proposed dwelling was significantly larger and taller than the existing stables, visually dominant, and out of keeping with the surrounding village and nearby listed buildings.
    • The current stables provided value to the wider community, including disadvantaged children.
    • The proposal conflicted with Local Plan policies (DS3, EN1, EN2, EN10) by failing to protect local character, landscape, and heritage assets.
    • High biodiversity loss and relocation of the pond may harm local wildlife and disrupt existing natural  ...  view the full minutes text for item 145.
    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    Site Inspection Briefing Resolution Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
    		•

    146.

    25/00045/FUL - Land North East of Braecroft, Upper Oddington. pdf icon PDF 159 KB

    Proposal

    Erection of a new self-build dwelling.

     

    Case Officer

    Helen Cooper

     

    Ward Member

    Councillor David Cunningham

     

    Recommendation

    PERMISSION subject to the completion of a unilateral undertaking.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Proposal

    Erection of a new self-build dwelling.

     

    Case Officer

    Helen Cooper

     

    Ward Member

    Councillor David Cunningham

     

    Recommendation

    PERMISSION subject to the completion of a unilateral undertaking.

     

    Councillor Dilys Neill left the Chamber at 16:04

     

    The Vice-Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application.

     

    The Case Officer introduced the application:

    • A site location plan, aerial photo, planting plan, site photographs highlighting the development of building over the last 30 years were shared

     

    Public Speakers

    Deborah Smith, Agent, made the following points:

     

    • The proposal was acceptable in principle under Policy DS3, as the site was within the village envelope and allowed for small-scale open market housing.
    • The site fell within an existing garden where domestic features were expected.
    • A nearly identical annex was approved on the same footprint and scale.
    • Minor layout changes which were not considered overdevelopment.
    • There were no objections from the Highways Officer with regards to access and safety.
    • The scheme met sustainability policy requirements, and the necessary legal undertaking was in progress.

     

    Councillor David Cunningham, Ward Member, made the following points:

    • The current application contradicted the rationale for the earlier permission, which restricted the use to ancillary purposes.
    • Concerns were raised about suburbanisation of a rural ridge-line site through domestic features (e.g. sheds, garden furniture) and more intensive residential use.
    • The site was highly visible from public footpaths; the proposed dwelling would increase visual intrusion and light pollution, undermining landscape character (contrary to EN4, EN5, and NPPF paragraph 189).
    • The addition of one dwelling was not considered to outweigh the harm caused to the landscape and setting.
    • At approximately 25m from the host property, the dwelling raised concerns about compliance with EN2.

     

    Feedback from Site Inspection Briefing.

    Members noted the site’s prominent position and viewed it from multiple vantage points, including the access road and nearby public rights of way. It was observed that visibility of the proposed building from the road would be limited due to land levels. Members acknowledged the need to assess the material difference between the current proposal and the extant permission already granted.

     

    Member Questions

    A member questioned whether there were any valid planning grounds to refuse the application, given its location within an existing garden.

     

    The Case Officer recommend approval, finding the proposal policy compliant with acceptable access.

     

    Members asked whether the Case Officer was satisfied there was no unacceptable impact in terms of light pollution.

     

    Councillor Andrew Maclean proposed accepting the officer recommendation to permit the application, and Councillor David Fowles seconded the proposal.

     

    Resolved: To PERMIT the application subject to the completion of a unilateral undertaking.

     

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    25/00045/FUL - Land North East of Braecroft, Upper Oddington. To Permit Resolution Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
    		•

    147.

    21/01892/FUL - Outbuilding to the East of Poplars Barn, Evenlode, Moreton-In-Marsh. pdf icon PDF 114 KB

    Proposal

    Demolition of existing outbuilding and erection of new dwelling.

     

    Case Officer

    Charlotte Van De Wydeven

     

    Ward Member

    Councillor David Cunningham

     

    Recommendation

    PERMIT

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Proposal

    Demolition of existing outbuilding and erection of a new dwelling.

     

    Case Officer

    Charlotte Van De Wydeven

     

    Ward Member

    Councillor David Cunningham

     

    Recommendation

    PERMIT

     

    Due to the Ecological Appraisal having expired, the Head of Planning Services proposed that the planning application be deferred to a later meeting.

     

    The recommendation was changed to DEFER consideration of the case of planning application 21/01892/FUL due to the Ecological Appraisal having expired.

     

    Proposed by Councillor Ray Brassington and seconded by Councillor David Fowles.

     

    RESOLVED: To DEFER the application

     

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    21/01892/FUL - Outbuilding to the East of Poplars Barn, Evenlode, Moreton-in-Marsh. To Defer Resolution Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
    		•

    148.

    Sites Inspection Briefing

    Members for 2 July (if required)

     

    Councillors Dilys Neill, Ian Watson, Daryl Corps, Mark Harris, Michael Vann.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The following Members were advised that a Site Inspection Briefing would be required for the 2 July 2025:

     

    Councillors Dilys Neill, Ian Watson, Daryl Corps, Andrew Maclean and Ray Brassington.

    149.

    Licensing Sub-Committee

    Members for 25 June 2025 (if required)

     

    To be confirmed.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    There were no licensing sub-committees planned.

     

    Related Pages