Agenda and minutes
PDF 532 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: There were no apologies for absence. |
||||||||||
|
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 relating to items to be considered at the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor Fowles noted that the Town and Parish speaker for the first application was a former Cotswold District Councillor and a member of the Conservative Party. He declared that he had no pecuniary interest.
|
||||||||||
|
To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 11 June 2025 Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 11 June 2025 were reviewed. It was noted that there had been a duplicate attendance entry for Councillor Michael Vann.
Councillor Brassington proposed that the amended minutes be approved. This was seconded by Councillor Fowles and, following a vote, the Committee agreed the proposal.
RESOLVED: To APPROVE the amended minutes of the meeting held on 11 June 2025.
Councillor Nick Bridges did not vote.
|
||||||||||
|
Chair's Announcements To receive any announcements from the Chair of the Planning and Licensing Committee.
Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair announced that the agenda for the afternoon was full and reminded Members to be brief and to the point. Members were asked to avoid repeating comments already made. The Chair advised that votes on the applications would be taken electronically to ensure the results were visible. In the event of a technical failure, voting would revert to a show of hands.
|
||||||||||
|
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 |
||||||||||
|
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. |
||||||||||
|
24/03501/OUT - Land North of The Wern, Lechlade Proposal Residential development of up to 54 residential dwellings.
Case Officer Martin Perks
Ward Member Councillors Helene Mansilla and Tristan Wilkinson
Recommendation REFUSE Additional documents:
Minutes: Proposal The proposal was for the residential development of up to 54 residential dwellings at Land North of The Wern, Lechlade.
Case Officer : Martin Perks Ward Members: Councillor Helene Mansilla and Cllr Tristian Wilkinson
Original recommendations : REFUSE
The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application.
Public speakers Speaker 1 Councillor Steve Trotter – Lechlade on Thames Town Council. He stated that Lechlade is a small principal settlement with limited infrastructure, and that the Local Plan strategy supports only small-scale development within the defined settlement boundary. It was noted that a previously allocated site within the boundary, controlled by the same landowner, remained undeveloped. Councillor Trotter expressed concern that speculative applications outside the settlement boundary undermined both the Local and Neighbourhood Plans. He advised that the site had a history of applications, one withdrawn and two refused and continued to raise significant landscape, ecological, heritage, and drainage issues. The current application had attracted strong objections from three councils and approximately 100 residents. While acknowledging the housing land supply position, he emphasised that the NPPF allowed refusal where the harms outweighed the benefits. He noted that proposed community infrastructure benefits had been reduced or removed in successive applications, while adverse impacts, including flooding concerns and harm to the setting of a Grade II listed building and the conservation area remained significant. He urged the Committee to support the officer’s recommendation for refusal, in order to uphold the integrity of local planning policy and avoid setting a precedent for speculative development in the countryside.
Speaker 2 Alick Kitchen – Objector A local resident, living in a listed building near the proposed site, spoke in objection to the application and raised eight main concerns:
|
||||||||||
|
25/00650/FUL - Land at Nos. 26 To 48 Austin Road Cirencester Proposal Demolition of existing 12 no. flats and construction of 14 no. new houses and flats.
Case Officer Martin Perks
Ward Member Councillor Claire Bloomer
Recommendations
Additional documents:
Minutes: Proposal The proposal was for the demolition of existing 12 flats and construction of 14 new houses and flats at Land at 26 – 48 Austin Road, Cirencester, GL7 1BT
Case Officer: Martin Perks Ward Member: Councillor Claire Bloomer
Original recommendation: PERMIT
The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application. · Late papers were received containing comments from Gloucestershire Archaeology, who raised no objections. · The Case Officer shared location maps, site location, various photographs of the existing buildings, similar local developments and elevation drawings.
Public Speaker Millie Nicholls Agent – Bromford Housing.
The speaker addressed the Committee in support of the application to redevelop the existing flats at Austin Road. They stated that the current buildings did not meet modern building regulations and were not viable for refurbishment. The block experienced high levels of antisocial behaviour, which affected staff resources and negatively impacted resident wellbeing. The physical condition of the buildings required substantial ongoing investment to maintain basic standards. The speaker noted that similar blocks in the vicinity had already been successfully redeveloped. The proposed scheme would deliver 100% affordable housing, using a fabric-first design approach to improve energy efficiency and reduce heating costs. Bromford, the applicant, highlighted their strong track record, financial capacity, and continued investment in affordable housing across the Cotswolds. The application was presented as an opportunity to replace substandard housing with high-quality, sustainable homes that met current standards and supported long-term community wellbeing.
Member Questions A Member asked about the anticipated timescale for the proposed development. The Case Officer and the Chair advised that, based on their experience of similar Bromford developments, completion was typically achieved within a relatively short timescale.
A Member questioned whether the proposed scheme could accommodate a greater number of homes, suggesting that the site appeared to have capacity for additional units. The Head of Planning advised that the Committee could only consider the application as submitted.
A Member welcomed the replacement of the existing block but raised a concern about the environmental impact of demolition. They asked whether any provision had been made for managing waste materials. The Head of Planning explained that, although the District Council did not have a specific waste minimisation policy, the County Council did. The applicant would be responsible for managing demolition and construction waste, with the disposal of materials governed by separate legislative frameworks.
A Member asked whether progress was being made on completing the Section 106 legal agreement relating to biodiversity net gain. The Case Officer confirmed that the agreement was in progress and would be completed shortly.
Member Comments
A Member welcomed the applicant’s commitment to high energy performance standards and expressed support for the scheme, highlighting the benefit of providing energy-efficient homes for people on lower incomes in the centre of Cirencester.
A proposal to PERMIT the application in line with the officer recommendations was proposed by Councillor Brassington and seconded by Councillor Fowles.
This proposal was put to the vote and agreed by the committee.
|
||||||||||
|
24/03111/FUL - The Saddlery, Kineton, Guiting Power 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
Original Recommendation: PERMIT
The Chair invited the Case Officer to present the application:
Public speakers Speaker 1 Councillor Liza Hanks – Temple Guiting Parish Council The Parish Councillor spoke in objection, describing the site as a well-maintained, cherished green space, not a brownfield or neglected plot. They noted that 74% of the hamlet’s residents had submitted formal objections, fearing loss of this valued landscape. The speaker argued that the proposed development did not reflect local building traditions or landscape character, disrupting the village’s historic pattern. They referenced relevant local plan policies that call for proportionate and respectful development, stating the proposal was out of scale and context. The speaker acknowledged the challenge of meeting housing targets but urged the Committee to protect the site and refuse the application.
Speaker 2 James Emtage – Objector The speaker highlighted that the site was small, with the proposed development nearly three times the height of the existing stables and was prominently visible from the road, especially if a large tree screening the site were removed. The speaker expressed concern that the new building would dominate the area, leaving little space for parking or gardens. They requested that if development were permitted, it should be limited to a bungalow matching the current stables’ height and footprint to preserve the character of the site. The stables had been rented by the speaker’s parents for over 35 years and had served as an open, community-focused space used by local families, children with special needs, and others to engage with animals and nature. The speaker questioned whether replacing this valued community asset with housing that might increase patronage at a local pub truly benefited the community. They urged the Committee to protect the stables as an important rural asset rather than allowing an out-of-character, dominant new build.
Speaker 3 Mark Pettit – Agent The Agent described the site as a natural infill plot within Kineton’s built-up area, proposing one additional dwelling on previously developed land amid a housing land supply shortage. The speaker noted that the scheme had been refined through officer engagement and no statutory consultees, except the parish council, had objected. The proposed dwelling, though larger than the existing stables, was consistent in scale with nearby properties and was designed in a traditional barn-like style using local materials to blend with the area. They highlighted the scheme’s alignment with Local Plan policies allowing small-scale development, its lack of adverse impacts on landscape, amenity, or heritage, and the applicant’s willingness to accept recommended conditions. The speaker requested the Committee approve the application in line with officer recommendation, emphasising its positive contribution to the rural community.
Speaker 4 Councillor Len Wilkins – Ward Member The Ward Member, representing Kineton, objected to the proposal, clarifying that Kineton was ... view the full minutes text for item 159.
|
||||||||||
|
25/01020/FUL - Duchy Home Farm, Tetbury Proposal Demolition of existing agricultural shed and redundant silage pits. Replacement calf shed with solar panels.
Case Officer Martin Perks
Ward Member Councillor Laura Hill-Wilson
Recommendation PERMIT Additional documents:
Minutes: Proposal Demolition of existing agricultural shed and redundant silage pits. Replacement calf shed with solar panels.
Case Officer: Martin Perks Ward Member: Councillor Laura Hill-Wilson
Recommendation: PERMIT
The Chair invited the Case Officer to present the application:
Public speakers
Public speaker 1 Anthony Wright – Agent The Agent explained how the proposed Agile Shed at Broadfield Farm was essential for improving calf housing, animal welfare, and environmental sustainability. The farm, run by Mr. Gay under a long-term tenancy from His Majesty the King, was a flagship organic dairy operation producing 1.3 million litres of milk annually. The new shed enhanced disease prevention, animal well-being, and growth by providing a clean, ventilated environment for around 200 dairy calves born each year. It was backed by DEFRA’s Farming Investment Fund and the Waitrose head vet. Rooftop solar panels were planned to supply renewable energy and support the farm’s ambition for carbon neutrality. Carefully designed to fit within the existing farmyard and to reflect the rural character of the Cotswolds, the building replaced outdated structures and avoided greenfield development. It represented a model for modern, high-welfare, environmentally responsible farming.
Public speaker 2 Councillor Laura Hall-Wilson – Ward Member The Ward Member stated that having reviewed the application and noting no objections from the Parish Council or local residents, she supported this proposal. Duchy Home Farm had identified the need to improve calf housing and was addressing it with a design that enhanced animal welfare and included rooftop solar panels for renewable energy. The Ward Member endorsed that the application also demonstrated strong environmental credentials, with a 72.74% biodiversity net gain, well above the 10% requirement. Duchy Home Farm was transparent and informative about its practices.
Councillor Maclean proposed accepting the Case Officer’s recommendation to PERMIT the application and Councillor Brassington seconded the proposal.
RESOLVED: To PERMIT the application.
|
||||||||||
|
25/01049/FUL - Compton Farm, Compton Abdale Proposal Demolition of existing building and erection of replacement building for the storage of logs.
Case Officer Graham Smith
Ward Member Councillor Paul Hodgkinson
Recommendation PERMIT Additional documents:
Minutes: Proposal Demolition of existing building and erection of replacement building for the storage of logs.
Case Officer: Graham Smith Ward Member: Councillor Paul Hodgkinson
Recommendation: PERMIT
The Chair invited the Case Officer to present the application:
Member Questions A Member asked for clarification on the liability for Biodiversity Net Gain for this application. The Case Officer explained that the site was already developed with hard standing and therefore this did not apply.
Members asked for clarification on the employment use of the site. The Case Officer confirmed that the operation was employment use B2 with ancillary B8, but the B2 uses were all undertaken elsewhere on the site.
Councillor Maclean proposed accepting the Case Officer’s recommendation to PERMIT the application and Councillor Corps seconded the proposal.
RESOLVED: to PERMIT the application. Councillor Judd did not vote on the application.
|
||||||||||
|
National Scheme of Delegation Purpose The purpose of this report is to set out the Council’s responses to the questions posed within the Reform of planning committees: technical consultation, published by The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) in May 2025.
Lead Officer Harrison Bowley – Head of Planning
Additional documents:
Minutes: The Head of Planning introduced the report setting out the Council’s responses to the questions posed within the Reform of planning committees: technical consultation, published by The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) in May 2025. The technical consultation would end at the end of July 2025:
Members were invited to comment:
A Member questioned whether, given that second-tier authorities were due to be abolished, third-tier authorities might be more involved in planning decisions going forward. The Head of Planning responded by saying that the consultation applied to district-level Planning Committees. If Cotswold District Council was succeeded by a unitary authority, the context would change. The National Scheme of Delegation would apply to all planning authorities whether district, borough, or unitary.
A Member enquired whether Planning Committee Members would need certification. The Head of Planning explained that a national certificate would be acceptable if it covered the basics of the planning system. However, it must not replace locally focused training and guidance.
Members agreed to submit any suggestions to the Head of Planning by 15 July for consideration by the Chair and Vice-Chair.
Councillor Coleman proposed accepting to delegate the response to the Head of Planning with consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair and Councillor Maclean seconded the proposal.
16:46: Councillor Judd returned to the Chamber.
RESOLVED: to PERMIT the delegated response of the Head of Planning with consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair
|
||||||||||
|
Sites Inspection Briefing Members for 6 August 2025 (if required)
Councillors Dilys Neill, Nick Bridges, Patrick Coleman, David Fowles, Michael Vann. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair advised members to keep the 6 August 2025 free for a possible Site Inspection Briefing.
Councillors Dilys Neill, Nick Bridges, Patrick Coleman, David Fowles, Michael Vann
|
||||||||||
|
Licensing Sub-Committee Members for 24 July 2025 - To be confirmed.
Additional documents: Minutes: There were no licensing sub-committees planned. |
Carried